GDMA vs. EWP

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

GDMA (Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF) and EWP (iShares MSCI Spain ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GDMA is a Hedge Fund fund actively managed by Gadsden, while EWP is a Europe Equities fund tracking the MSCI Spain Index. GDMA is actively managed, while EWP is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GDMA returned 7.35%/yr vs 17.57%/yr for EWP. At a 0.31 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GDMA charges 0.77%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for EWP.

Performance

GDMA vs. EWP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA) and iShares MSCI Spain ETF (EWP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with GDMA having a 9.12% return and EWP slightly lower at 8.89%.

GDMA

• 1D: 0.65%
• 1M: -0.51%
• YTD: 9.12%
• 6M: 11.07%
• 1Y: 28.81%
• 3Y*: 16.32%
• 5Y*: 7.35%
• 10Y*: —

EWP

• 1D: 0.63%
• 1M: 4.32%
• YTD: 8.89%
• 6M: 11.54%
• 1Y: 39.17%
• 3Y*: 32.21%
• 5Y*: 17.57%
• 10Y*: 12.33%

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

GDMA vs. EWP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
GDMA Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF	9.12%	25.29%	7.44%	1.72%	-2.08%	3.95%	21.08%	11.59%	-3.70%
EWP iShares MSCI Spain ETF	8.89%	78.03%	5.70%	30.26%	-5.18%	0.25%	-3.94%	11.93%	-4.94%

Correlation

The correlation between GDMA and EWP is 0.42, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.42
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.38
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.23
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 15, 2018	0.31

The correlation between GDMA and EWP shifts across timeframes, from 0.23 (5 years) to 0.42 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

GDMA vs. EWP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GDMA	EWP
Technology	23.4%	4.9%
Financial Services	14.5%	41.4%
Industrials	14.4%	16.1%
Energy	10.0%	5.3%
Basic Materials	9.0%	-
Consumer Cyclical	8.8%	4.0%
Communication Services	7.0%	2.9%
Healthcare	5.5%	1.3%
Consumer Defensive	3.5%	-
Utilities	2.4%	21.2%
Real Estate	1.6%	2.9%

Return for Risk

GDMA vs. EWP — Risk / Return Rank

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

GDMA

GDMA Risk / Return Rank: 69
GDMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
GDMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
GDMA Omega Ratio Rank: 72
GDMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
GDMA Martin Ratio Rank: 62

EWP

EWP Risk / Return Rank: 69
EWP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
EWP Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
EWP Omega Ratio Rank: 65
EWP Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
EWP Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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.

GDMA vs. EWP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA) and iShares MSCI Spain ETF (EWP). 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.

	GDMA	EWP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.93	1.94	-0.01
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.51	2.62	-0.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.34	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.70	3.26	+0.44
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.85	11.51	-1.66

GDMA vs. EWP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GDMA Sharpe Ratio is 1.93, which is comparable to the EWP Sharpe Ratio of 1.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GDMA and EWP, 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

GDMA vs. EWP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GDMA drawdown since its inception was -16.66%, smaller than the maximum EWP drawdown of -61.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GDMA and EWP.

Drawdown Indicators

	GDMA	EWP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.66%	-61.19%	+44.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.53%	-11.38%	+3.85%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-7.53%	-12.19%	+4.66%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-12.74%	-33.76%	+21.02%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-46.36%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.90%	0.00%	-2.90%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.79%	-21.41%	+17.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.82%	3.22%	-0.40%

Volatility

GDMA vs. EWP - Volatility Comparison

Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA) has a higher volatility of 7.92% compared to iShares MSCI Spain ETF (EWP) at 6.21%. This indicates that GDMA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EWP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GDMA	EWP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.92%	6.21%	+1.71%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.68%	16.09%	-4.41%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.40%	19.13%	-4.73%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.02%	20.31%	-10.29%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.16%	22.22%	-11.06%

GDMA vs. EWP - Expense Ratio Comparison

GDMA has a 0.77% expense ratio, which is higher than EWP's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

GDMA vs. EWP - Dividend Comparison

GDMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.56%, more than EWP's 2.09% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EWP iShares MSCI Spain ETF	2.09%	2.27%	4.35%	2.70%	3.07%	3.29%	2.56%	3.72%	3.69%	2.72%	4.65%	3.85%
GDMA Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF	2.56%	2.79%	2.32%	4.14%	1.18%	2.10%	0.62%	3.17%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GDMA and EWP in my portfolio?

GDMA and EWP have a correlation of 0.42, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GDMA or EWP?

GDMA has higher volatility (7.92%) compared to EWP (6.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GDMA dropped -16.66% vs EWP's -61.19%.

Which ETF is better, GDMA or EWP?

On 5-year performance, EWP leads with 17.57% vs 7.35% for GDMA. On fees, EWP is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, EWP has been the lower-risk option at 6.21%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GDMA or EWP?

Over the 5-year period, EWP has performed better with a 17.57% return vs 7.35%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GDMA or EWP?

EWP is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.77% for GDMA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GDMA or EWP?

GDMA has the higher dividend yield at 2.56%, compared with 2.09% for EWP.

What is the main difference between GDMA and EWP?

GDMA is categorized as Hedge Fund, while EWP is Europe Equities. They also come from different issuers: Gadsden and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.77% for GDMA and 0.50% for EWP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EWP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.94 vs 1.93), 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.