ESIX vs. GLDM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ESIX (SPDR S&P SmallCap 600 ESG ETF) and GLDM (SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust) are both exchange-traded funds - ESIX is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the S&P SmallCap 600 ESG Index, while GLDM is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, ESIX returned 14.39%/yr vs 31.49%/yr for GLDM. At a 0.11 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ESIX charges 0.12%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for GLDM.

Performance

ESIX vs. GLDM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR S&P SmallCap 600 ESG ETF (ESIX) 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, ESIX achieves a 10.83% return, which is significantly higher than GLDM's 3.00% return.

ESIX

• 1D: -1.16%
• 1M: -0.56%
• YTD: 10.83%
• 6M: 9.86%
• 1Y: 22.21%
• 3Y*: 14.39%
• 5Y*: —
• 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)

ESIX vs. GLDM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
ESIX SPDR S&P SmallCap 600 ESG ETF	10.83%	1.83%	9.66%	17.51%	-14.62%
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	3.00%	64.20%	27.08%	13.04%	-0.14%

Correlation

The correlation between ESIX and GLDM is 0.13, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.13
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.12
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 12, 2022	0.11

ESIX vs. GLDM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ESIX	GLDM
Industrials	17.2%	-
Financial Services	17.0%	-
Technology	16.6%	-
Consumer Cyclical	12.4%	-
Healthcare	10.8%	-
Real Estate	6.9%	-
Energy	6.7%	-
Basic Materials	4.4%	100.0%
Consumer Defensive	3.0%	-
Communication Services	2.9%	-
Utilities	2.0%	-

Return for Risk

ESIX vs. GLDM — Risk / Return Rank

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

ESIX

ESIX Risk / Return Rank: 37
ESIX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
ESIX Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
ESIX Omega Ratio Rank: 32
ESIX Calmar Ratio Rank: 42
ESIX Martin Ratio Rank: 41

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.

ESIX vs. GLDM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR S&P SmallCap 600 ESG ETF (ESIX) 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.

	ESIX	GLDM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.20	1.24	-0.03
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.84	1.63	+0.21
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.25	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.08	1.70	+0.38
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.57	4.23	+2.34
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ESIX vs. GLDM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ESIX Sharpe Ratio is 1.20, which is comparable to the GLDM Sharpe Ratio of 1.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ESIX 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

	ESIX	GLDM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.20	1.24	-0.03
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	1.04	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.24	1.02	-0.78

Drawdowns

ESIX vs. GLDM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ESIX drawdown since its inception was -27.56%, which is greater than GLDM's maximum drawdown of -21.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ESIX and GLDM.

Drawdown Indicators

	ESIX	GLDM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.56%	-21.63%	-5.93%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.18%	-19.14%	+8.96%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.56%	-19.14%	-8.42%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-20.92%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.42%	-17.65%	+15.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.59%	-6.22%	-2.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.22%	7.69%	-4.47%

Volatility

ESIX vs. GLDM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR S&P SmallCap 600 ESG ETF (ESIX) is 4.19%, while SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) has a volatility of 5.47%. This indicates that ESIX 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

	ESIX	GLDM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.19%	5.47%	-1.28%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.40%	22.99%	-10.59%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.99%	26.39%	-8.40%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.53%	17.91%	+3.62%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.53%	16.85%	+4.68%

ESIX vs. GLDM - Expense Ratio Comparison

ESIX has a 0.12% 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

ESIX vs. GLDM - Dividend Comparison

ESIX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.45%, while GLDM has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
ESIX SPDR S&P SmallCap 600 ESG ETF	1.45%	1.64%	1.65%	1.69%	1.54%
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ESIX and GLDM in my portfolio?

ESIX and GLDM have a correlation of 0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ESIX or GLDM?

GLDM has higher volatility (5.47%) compared to ESIX (4.19%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ESIX dropped -27.56% vs GLDM's -21.63%.

Which ETF is better, ESIX or GLDM?

On 3-year performance, GLDM leads with 31.49% vs 14.39% for ESIX. On fees, GLDM is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, ESIX has been the lower-risk option at 4.19%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ESIX or GLDM?

Over the 3-year period, GLDM has performed better with a 31.49% return vs 14.39%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ESIX or GLDM?

GLDM is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.12% for ESIX.

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

ESIX has the higher dividend yield at 1.45%, compared with 0.00% for GLDM.

What is the main difference between ESIX and GLDM?

ESIX is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while GLDM is Gold. ESIX tracks S&P SmallCap 600 ESG Index, while GLDM tracks LBMA Gold Price PM. Their fees differ too: 0.12% for ESIX and 0.10% for GLDM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GLDM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.24 vs 1.20), 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.