EFIV vs. GLD

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EFIV (State Street SPDR S&P 500 ESG ETF) and GLD (SPDR Gold Shares) are both exchange-traded funds - EFIV is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 ESG Index, while GLD is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EFIV returned 14.48%/yr vs 18.15%/yr for GLD. At a 0.14 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EFIV charges 0.10%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for GLD.

Performance

EFIV vs. GLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in State Street SPDR S&P 500 ESG ETF (EFIV) and SPDR Gold Shares (GLD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EFIV achieves a 9.91% return, which is significantly higher than GLD's 2.92% return.

EFIV

• 1D: -0.68%
• 1M: 4.63%
• YTD: 9.91%
• 6M: 10.51%
• 1Y: 30.49%
• 3Y*: 21.82%
• 5Y*: 14.48%
• 10Y*: —

GLD

• 1D: -0.99%
• 1M: -1.65%
• YTD: 2.92%
• 6M: 5.43%
• 1Y: 32.04%
• 3Y*: 31.09%
• 5Y*: 18.15%
• 10Y*: 13.12%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EFIV vs. GLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
EFIV State Street SPDR S&P 500 ESG ETF	9.91%	18.47%	23.80%	27.92%	-17.76%	31.70%	16.69%
GLD SPDR Gold Shares	2.92%	63.68%	26.66%	12.69%	-0.77%	-4.15%	-2.93%

Correlation

The correlation between EFIV and GLD is 0.19, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.19
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.14
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.11
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 29, 2020	0.14

EFIV vs. GLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EFIV	GLD
Technology	36.9%	-
Communication Services	12.8%	-
Financial Services	12.5%	-
Healthcare	10.7%	-
Industrials	7.5%	-
Consumer Defensive	5.3%	-
Consumer Cyclical	5.0%	-
Energy	2.9%	-
Real Estate	2.2%	-
Utilities	2.1%	-
Basic Materials	2.0%	100.0%

Return for Risk

EFIV vs. GLD — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

EFIV

EFIV Risk / Return Rank: 76
EFIV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
EFIV Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
EFIV Omega Ratio Rank: 78
EFIV Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
EFIV Martin Ratio Rank: 77

GLD

GLD Risk / Return Rank: 32
GLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 32
GLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
GLD Omega Ratio Rank: 35
GLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
GLD Martin Ratio Rank: 28

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

EFIV vs. GLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for State Street SPDR S&P 500 ESG ETF (EFIV) and SPDR Gold Shares (GLD). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	EFIV	GLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.60	1.21	+1.39
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.62	1.60	+2.02
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	1.24	+0.23
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.24	1.68	+1.57
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	15.02	4.15	+10.86
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EFIV vs. GLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EFIV Sharpe Ratio is 2.60, which is higher than the GLD Sharpe Ratio of 1.21. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EFIV and GLD, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	EFIV	GLD	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.60	1.21	+1.39
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.86	1.01	-0.15
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.83	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.06	0.60	+0.46

Drawdowns

EFIV vs. GLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EFIV drawdown since its inception was -24.52%, smaller than the maximum GLD drawdown of -45.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EFIV and GLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	EFIV	GLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.52%	-45.56%	+21.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.44%	-19.21%	+9.77%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.23%	-19.21%	-0.02%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.52%	-21.03%	-3.49%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-22.00%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.02%	-17.75%	+16.73%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.81%	-16.16%	+11.35%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.04%	7.73%	-5.69%

Volatility

EFIV vs. GLD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for State Street SPDR S&P 500 ESG ETF (EFIV) is 3.14%, while SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) has a volatility of 5.51%. This indicates that EFIV experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GLD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EFIV	GLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.14%	5.51%	-2.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.00%	23.16%	-14.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.79%	26.61%	-14.82%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.92%	18.00%	-1.08%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.83%	15.95%	+0.88%

EFIV vs. GLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

EFIV has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is lower than GLD's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

EFIV vs. GLD - Dividend Comparison

EFIV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.94%, while GLD has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
EFIV State Street SPDR S&P 500 ESG ETF	0.94%	1.03%	1.20%	1.37%	1.64%	1.19%	0.65%
GLD SPDR Gold Shares	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EFIV and GLD in my portfolio?

EFIV and GLD have a correlation of 0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EFIV or GLD?

GLD has higher volatility (5.51%) compared to EFIV (3.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EFIV dropped -24.52% vs GLD's -45.56%.

Which ETF is better, EFIV or GLD?

On 5-year performance, GLD leads with 18.15% vs 14.48% for EFIV. On fees, EFIV is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, EFIV has been the lower-risk option at 3.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EFIV or GLD?

Over the 5-year period, GLD has performed better with a 18.15% return vs 14.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EFIV or GLD?

EFIV is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for GLD.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EFIV or GLD?

EFIV has the higher dividend yield at 0.94%, compared with 0.00% for GLD.

What is the main difference between EFIV and GLD?

EFIV is categorized as S&P 500, while GLD is Gold. EFIV tracks S&P 500 ESG Index, while GLD tracks LBMA Gold Price PM. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for EFIV and 0.40% for GLD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EFIV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.60 vs 1.21), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.