FISR vs. GLDM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FISR (SPDR SSGA Fixed Income Sector Rotation ETF) and GLDM (SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust) are both exchange-traded funds - FISR is a Intermediate Core-Plus Bond fund actively managed by State Street, while GLDM is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM. FISR is actively managed, while GLDM is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FISR returned -0.78%/yr vs 18.49%/yr for GLDM. At a 0.32 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FISR charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for GLDM.

Performance

FISR vs. GLDM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR SSGA Fixed Income Sector Rotation ETF (FISR) 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, FISR achieves a -0.13% return, which is significantly lower than GLDM's 3.00% return.

FISR

• 1D: -0.39%
• 1M: 0.21%
• YTD: -0.13%
• 6M: -0.33%
• 1Y: 4.75%
• 3Y*: 3.27%
• 5Y*: -0.78%
• 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)

FISR vs. GLDM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FISR SPDR SSGA Fixed Income Sector Rotation ETF	-0.13%	6.32%	1.01%	5.28%	-15.73%	-1.70%	5.86%	6.81%
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	3.00%	64.20%	27.08%	13.04%	-0.47%	-4.01%	25.10%	17.55%

Correlation

The correlation between FISR and GLDM is 0.23, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.23
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.25
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.32
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 4, 2019	0.32

FISR vs. GLDM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FISR	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

FISR vs. GLDM — Risk / Return Rank

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

FISR

FISR Risk / Return Rank: 30
FISR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 30
FISR Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
FISR Omega Ratio Rank: 28
FISR Calmar Ratio Rank: 32
FISR Martin Ratio Rank: 31

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.

FISR vs. GLDM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR SSGA Fixed Income Sector Rotation ETF (FISR) 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.

	FISR	GLDM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.09	1.24	-0.14
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.62	1.63	-0.01
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.25	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.56	1.70	-0.15
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.53	4.23	+0.30
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FISR vs. GLDM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FISR Sharpe Ratio is 1.09, which is comparable to the GLDM Sharpe Ratio of 1.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FISR 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

	FISR	GLDM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.09	1.24	-0.14
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.12	1.04	-1.16
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.12	1.02	-0.89

Drawdowns

FISR vs. GLDM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FISR drawdown since its inception was -20.27%, smaller than the maximum GLDM drawdown of -21.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FISR and GLDM.

Drawdown Indicators

	FISR	GLDM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.27%	-21.63%	+1.36%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.06%	-19.14%	+16.08%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-6.60%	-19.14%	+12.54%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.10%	-20.92%	+0.82%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.48%	-17.65%	+11.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.70%	-6.22%	-1.48%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.05%	7.69%	-6.64%

Volatility

FISR vs. GLDM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR SSGA Fixed Income Sector Rotation ETF (FISR) is 1.44%, while SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) has a volatility of 5.47%. This indicates that FISR 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

	FISR	GLDM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.44%	5.47%	-4.03%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.22%	22.99%	-19.77%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.36%	26.39%	-22.03%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.59%	17.91%	-11.32%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.35%	16.85%	-10.50%

FISR vs. GLDM - Expense Ratio Comparison

FISR has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than GLDM's 0.10% expense ratio.

Dividends

FISR vs. GLDM - Dividend Comparison

FISR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.19%, while GLDM has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FISR SPDR SSGA Fixed Income Sector Rotation ETF	4.19%	3.97%	3.59%	3.50%	2.19%	1.87%	2.47%	2.99%
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FISR and GLDM in my portfolio?

FISR and GLDM have a correlation of 0.23, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FISR or GLDM?

GLDM has higher volatility (5.47%) compared to FISR (1.44%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FISR dropped -20.27% vs GLDM's -21.63%.

Which ETF is better, FISR or GLDM?

On 5-year performance, GLDM leads with 18.49% vs -0.78% for FISR. On fees, GLDM is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, FISR has been the lower-risk option at 1.44%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FISR or GLDM?

Over the 5-year period, GLDM has performed better with a 18.49% return vs -0.78%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FISR or GLDM?

GLDM is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for FISR.

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

FISR has the higher dividend yield at 4.19%, compared with 0.00% for GLDM.

What is the main difference between FISR and GLDM?

FISR is categorized as Intermediate Core-Plus Bond, while GLDM is Gold. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for FISR and 0.10% for GLDM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GLDM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.24 vs 1.09), 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.