FNGS vs. GLDM

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

FNGS (MicroSectors FANG+ ETN) and GLDM (SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust) are both exchange-traded funds - FNGS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the NYSE FANG+ Index, while GLDM is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FNGS returned 19.76%/yr vs 17.41%/yr for GLDM. At a 0.10 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FNGS charges 0.58%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for GLDM.

Performance

FNGS vs. GLDM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) 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, FNGS achieves a 6.79% return, which is significantly higher than GLDM's -2.40% return.

FNGS

• 1D: -0.94%
• 1M: -1.94%
• YTD: 6.79%
• 6M: 4.25%
• 1Y: 19.09%
• 3Y*: 29.80%
• 5Y*: 19.76%
• 10Y*: —

GLDM

• 1D: 0.11%
• 1M: -7.40%
• YTD: -2.40%
• 6M: -2.09%
• 1Y: 22.58%
• 3Y*: 29.27%
• 5Y*: 17.41%
• 10Y*: —

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

FNGS vs. GLDM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	6.79%	18.64%	51.99%	95.24%	-40.32%	16.96%	101.99%	10.10%
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	-2.40%	64.20%	27.08%	13.04%	-0.47%	-4.01%	25.10%	4.05%

Correlation

The correlation between FNGS and GLDM is 0.15, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.15
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.09
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.08
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 13, 2019	0.10

Return for Risk

FNGS vs. GLDM — Risk / Return Rank

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

FNGS

FNGS Risk / Return Rank: 23
FNGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
FNGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
FNGS Omega Ratio Rank: 24
FNGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
FNGS Martin Ratio Rank: 20

GLDM

GLDM Risk / Return Rank: 27
GLDM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
GLDM Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
GLDM Omega Ratio Rank: 31
GLDM Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
GLDM Martin Ratio Rank: 25

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.

FNGS vs. GLDM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	FNGS	GLDM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.79	0.90	-0.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.19	1.26	-0.07
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	1.19	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.75	1.00	-0.25
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.12	2.87	-0.75

FNGS vs. GLDM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNGS Sharpe Ratio is 0.79, which is comparable to the GLDM Sharpe Ratio of 0.90. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNGS 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.

Drawdowns

FNGS vs. GLDM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNGS drawdown since its inception was -48.98%, which is greater than GLDM's maximum drawdown of -24.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNGS and GLDM.

Drawdown Indicators

	FNGS	GLDM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-48.98%	-24.35%	-24.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.93%	-24.35%	+1.42%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.77%	-24.35%	-2.42%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-48.98%	-24.35%	-24.63%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.63%	-21.96%	+12.33%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.85%	-6.27%	-4.58%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.05%	8.44%	-0.39%

Volatility

FNGS vs. GLDM - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) has a higher volatility of 8.74% compared to SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) at 7.73%. This indicates that FNGS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GLDM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FNGS	GLDM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.74%	7.73%	+1.01%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.19%	23.93%	-6.74%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.65%	27.15%	-5.50%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	30.10%	18.13%	+11.97%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.17%	16.98%	+14.19%

FNGS vs. GLDM - Expense Ratio Comparison

FNGS has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is higher than GLDM's 0.10% expense ratio.

Dividends

FNGS vs. GLDM - Dividend Comparison

Neither FNGS nor GLDM has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FNGS and GLDM in my portfolio?

FNGS and GLDM have a correlation of 0.15, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FNGS or GLDM?

FNGS has higher volatility (8.74%) compared to GLDM (7.73%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FNGS dropped -48.98% vs GLDM's -24.35%.

Which ETF is better, FNGS or GLDM?

On 5-year performance, FNGS leads with 19.76% vs 17.41% for GLDM. On fees, GLDM is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, GLDM has been the lower-risk option at 7.73%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FNGS or GLDM?

Over the 5-year period, FNGS has performed better with a 19.76% return vs 17.41%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FNGS or GLDM?

GLDM is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for FNGS.

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

FNGS and GLDM have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between FNGS and GLDM?

FNGS is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while GLDM is Gold. FNGS tracks NYSE FANG+ Index, while GLDM tracks LBMA Gold Price PM. They also come from different issuers: BMO and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for FNGS and 0.10% for GLDM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GLDM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.90 vs 0.79), 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.