EFIV vs. GLDM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EFIV (State Street SPDR S&P 500 ESG ETF) and GLDM (SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust) are both exchange-traded funds - EFIV is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 ESG Index, while GLDM 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 18.49%/yr for GLDM. At a 0.13 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.10% expense ratio.

Performance

EFIV vs. GLDM - 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 MiniShares Trust (GLDM). 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 GLDM's 3.00% return.

EFIV

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

GLDM

• 1D: -0.96%
• 1M: -1.62%
• YTD: 3.00%
• 6M: 5.60%
• 1Y: 32.42%
• 3Y*: 31.49%
• 5Y*: 18.49%
• 10Y*: —

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

EFIV vs. GLDM - 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%
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	3.00%	64.20%	27.08%	13.04%	-0.47%	-4.01%	-2.87%

Correlation

The correlation between EFIV and GLDM 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	0.13

EFIV vs. GLDM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EFIV	GLDM
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. GLDM — 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

GLDM

GLDM Risk / Return Rank: 32
GLDM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
GLDM Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
GLDM Omega Ratio Rank: 36
GLDM Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
GLDM Martin Ratio Rank: 29

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. GLDM - 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 MiniShares Trust (GLDM). 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	GLDM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.60	1.24	+1.36
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.62	1.63	+1.99
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	1.25	+0.22
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.24	1.70	+1.54
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.02	4.23	+10.79
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. GLDM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EFIV Sharpe Ratio is 2.60, which is higher than the GLDM Sharpe Ratio of 1.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EFIV and GLDM, 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	GLDM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.60	1.24	+1.36
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.86	1.04	-0.18
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.06	1.02	+0.05

Drawdowns

EFIV vs. GLDM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EFIV drawdown since its inception was -24.52%, which is greater than GLDM's maximum drawdown of -21.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EFIV and GLDM.

Drawdown Indicators

	EFIV	GLDM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.52%	-21.63%	-2.89%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.44%	-19.14%	+9.70%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.23%	-19.14%	-0.09%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.52%	-20.92%	-3.60%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.02%	-17.65%	+16.63%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.81%	-6.22%	+1.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.04%	7.69%	-5.65%

Volatility

EFIV vs. GLDM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for State Street SPDR S&P 500 ESG ETF (EFIV) is 3.14%, while SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) has a volatility of 5.47%. This indicates that EFIV experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GLDM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EFIV	GLDM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.14%	5.47%	-2.33%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.00%	22.99%	-13.99%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.79%	26.39%	-14.60%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.92%	17.91%	-0.99%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.83%	16.85%	-0.02%

EFIV vs. GLDM - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both EFIV and GLDM have an expense ratio of 0.10%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

EFIV vs. GLDM - Dividend Comparison

EFIV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.94%, while GLDM 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%
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EFIV and GLDM in my portfolio?

EFIV and GLDM 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 GLDM?

GLDM has higher volatility (5.47%) compared to EFIV (3.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EFIV dropped -24.52% vs GLDM's -21.63%.

Which ETF is better, EFIV or GLDM?

On 5-year performance, GLDM leads with 18.49% vs 14.48% for EFIV. Both ETFs have the same 0.10% expense ratio. 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 GLDM?

Over the 5-year period, GLDM has performed better with a 18.49% 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 GLDM?

EFIV and GLDM have the same expense ratio: 0.10% per year.

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

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

What is the main difference between EFIV and GLDM?

EFIV is categorized as S&P 500, while GLDM is Gold. EFIV tracks S&P 500 ESG Index, while GLDM tracks LBMA Gold Price PM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EFIV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.60 vs 1.24), 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.