EMHC vs. GLDM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EMHC (SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF) and GLDM (SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust) are both exchange-traded funds - EMHC is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg Emerging USD Bond Core Index - Benchmark TR Net, while GLDM is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EMHC returned 1.55%/yr vs 18.49%/yr for GLDM. At a 0.31 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EMHC charges 0.23%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for GLDM.

Performance

EMHC vs. GLDM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF (EMHC) 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, EMHC achieves a 1.57% return, which is significantly lower than GLDM's 3.00% return.

EMHC

• 1D: -0.32%
• 1M: 1.13%
• YTD: 1.57%
• 6M: 1.74%
• 1Y: 11.54%
• 3Y*: 8.74%
• 5Y*: 1.55%
• 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)

EMHC vs. GLDM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
EMHC SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF	1.57%	14.07%	3.52%	10.06%	-17.75%	1.68%
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	3.00%	64.20%	27.08%	13.04%	-0.47%	5.15%

Correlation

The correlation between EMHC and GLDM is 0.21, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.21
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.24
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.30
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 8, 2021	0.31

EMHC vs. GLDM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMHC	GLDM
Financial Services	100.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	100.0%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

EMHC vs. GLDM — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMHC

EMHC Risk / Return Rank: 64
EMHC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
EMHC Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
EMHC Omega Ratio Rank: 68
EMHC Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
EMHC Martin Ratio Rank: 62

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.

EMHC vs. GLDM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF (EMHC) 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.

	EMHC	GLDM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.14	1.24	+0.91
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.24	1.63	+1.60
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.25	+0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.65	1.70	+0.95
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.09	4.23	+6.86
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EMHC vs. GLDM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMHC Sharpe Ratio is 2.14, which is higher than the GLDM Sharpe Ratio of 1.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMHC 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

	EMHC	GLDM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.14	1.24	+0.91
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.17	1.04	-0.87
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.22	1.02	-0.80

Drawdowns

EMHC vs. GLDM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMHC drawdown since its inception was -28.03%, which is greater than GLDM's maximum drawdown of -21.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMHC and GLDM.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMHC	GLDM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.03%	-21.63%	-6.40%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.37%	-19.14%	+14.77%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-7.67%	-19.14%	+11.47%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.03%	-20.92%	-7.11%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.32%	-17.65%	+17.33%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.91%	-6.22%	-3.69%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.04%	7.69%	-6.65%

Volatility

EMHC vs. GLDM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF (EMHC) is 1.89%, while SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) has a volatility of 5.47%. This indicates that EMHC 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

	EMHC	GLDM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.89%	5.47%	-3.58%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.16%	22.99%	-18.83%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.43%	26.39%	-20.96%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.06%	17.91%	-8.85%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.96%	16.85%	-7.89%

EMHC vs. GLDM - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMHC has a 0.23% expense ratio, which is higher than GLDM's 0.10% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

EMHC vs. GLDM - Dividend Comparison

EMHC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.11%, while GLDM has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
EMHC SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF	6.11%	6.16%	5.95%	5.12%	5.11%	2.97%
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMHC and GLDM in my portfolio?

EMHC and GLDM have a correlation of 0.21, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EMHC or GLDM?

GLDM has higher volatility (5.47%) compared to EMHC (1.89%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMHC dropped -28.03% vs GLDM's -21.63%.

Which ETF is better, EMHC or GLDM?

On 5-year performance, GLDM leads with 18.49% vs 1.55% for EMHC. On fees, GLDM is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, EMHC has been the lower-risk option at 1.89%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMHC or GLDM?

Over the 5-year period, GLDM has performed better with a 18.49% return vs 1.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMHC or GLDM?

GLDM is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.23% for EMHC.

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

EMHC has the higher dividend yield at 6.11%, compared with 0.00% for GLDM.

What is the main difference between EMHC and GLDM?

EMHC is categorized as Emerging Markets Bonds, while GLDM is Gold. EMHC tracks Bloomberg Emerging USD Bond Core Index - Benchmark TR Net, while GLDM tracks LBMA Gold Price PM. Their fees differ too: 0.23% for EMHC and 0.10% for GLDM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMHC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.14 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.