GDMN vs. MOOD

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

GDMN (WisdomTree Efficient Gold Plus Gold Miners Strategy Fund) and MOOD (Relative Sentiment Tactical Allocation ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GDMN is a Commodities fund actively managed by WisdomTree, while MOOD is a Tactical Allocation fund actively managed by Relative Sentiment. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, GDMN returned 56.30%/yr vs 20.20%/yr for MOOD. A 0.57 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GDMN charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.68%/yr for MOOD.

Performance

GDMN vs. MOOD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in WisdomTree Efficient Gold Plus Gold Miners Strategy Fund (GDMN) and Relative Sentiment Tactical Allocation ETF (MOOD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GDMN achieves a -13.77% return, which is significantly lower than MOOD's 14.12% return.

GDMN

• 1D: 2.11%
• 1M: -21.24%
• YTD: -13.77%
• 6M: -13.73%
• 1Y: 51.90%
• 3Y*: 56.30%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

MOOD

• 1D: 0.41%
• 1M: 0.95%
• YTD: 14.12%
• 6M: 15.59%
• 1Y: 34.43%
• 3Y*: 20.20%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GDMN vs. MOOD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
GDMN WisdomTree Efficient Gold Plus Gold Miners Strategy Fund	-13.77%	237.09%	28.23%	12.97%	-7.00%
MOOD Relative Sentiment Tactical Allocation ETF	14.12%	30.39%	12.53%	12.56%	-3.31%

Correlation

The correlation between GDMN and MOOD is 0.72, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.72
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.60
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 19, 2022	0.57

The correlation between GDMN and MOOD shifts across timeframes, from 0.57 (all time) to 0.72 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

GDMN vs. MOOD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GDMN	MOOD
Basic Materials	100.0%	4.4%
Communication Services	-	7.9%
Consumer Cyclical	-	9.5%
Consumer Defensive	-	5.1%
Energy	-	3.7%
Financial Services	-	15.7%
Healthcare	-	8.4%
Industrials	-	12.6%
Real Estate	-	2.5%
Technology	-	27.6%
Utilities	-	2.7%

Return for Risk

GDMN vs. MOOD — Risk / Return Rank

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

GDMN

GDMN Risk / Return Rank: 29
GDMN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
GDMN Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
GDMN Omega Ratio Rank: 33
GDMN Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
GDMN Martin Ratio Rank: 26

MOOD

MOOD Risk / Return Rank: 77
MOOD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
MOOD Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
MOOD Omega Ratio Rank: 86
MOOD Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
MOOD Martin Ratio Rank: 67

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.

GDMN vs. MOOD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for WisdomTree Efficient Gold Plus Gold Miners Strategy Fund (GDMN) and Relative Sentiment Tactical Allocation ETF (MOOD). 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.

	GDMN	MOOD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.90	2.32	-1.42
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.38	2.76	-1.38
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.45	-0.25
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.17	3.46	-2.30
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.15	10.68	-7.53

GDMN vs. MOOD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GDMN Sharpe Ratio is 0.90, which is lower than the MOOD Sharpe Ratio of 2.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GDMN and MOOD, 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

GDMN vs. MOOD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GDMN drawdown since its inception was -52.82%, which is greater than MOOD's maximum drawdown of -14.34%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GDMN and MOOD.

Drawdown Indicators

	GDMN	MOOD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-52.82%	-14.34%	-38.48%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-48.76%	-9.71%	-39.05%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-48.76%	-9.71%	-39.05%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-43.39%	-0.86%	-42.53%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-19.02%	-2.32%	-16.70%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	18.01%	3.14%	+14.87%

Volatility

GDMN vs. MOOD - Volatility Comparison

WisdomTree Efficient Gold Plus Gold Miners Strategy Fund (GDMN) has a higher volatility of 21.98% compared to Relative Sentiment Tactical Allocation ETF (MOOD) at 4.19%. This indicates that GDMN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MOOD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GDMN	MOOD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	21.98%	4.19%	+17.79%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	54.30%	12.73%	+41.57%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	63.44%	14.49%	+48.95%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	48.07%	12.13%	+35.94%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	48.07%	12.13%	+35.94%

GDMN vs. MOOD - Expense Ratio Comparison

GDMN has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than MOOD's 0.68% expense ratio.

Dividends

GDMN vs. MOOD - Dividend Comparison

GDMN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.13%, more than MOOD's 0.35% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
GDMN WisdomTree Efficient Gold Plus Gold Miners Strategy Fund	3.13%	2.70%	9.44%	7.69%	1.44%
MOOD Relative Sentiment Tactical Allocation ETF	0.35%	0.40%	1.33%	1.34%	1.43%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GDMN and MOOD in my portfolio?

GDMN and MOOD have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GDMN or MOOD?

GDMN has higher volatility (21.98%) compared to MOOD (4.19%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GDMN dropped -52.82% vs MOOD's -14.34%.

Which ETF is better, GDMN or MOOD?

On 3-year performance, GDMN leads with 56.30% vs 20.20% for MOOD. On fees, GDMN is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, MOOD 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, GDMN or MOOD?

Over the 3-year period, GDMN has performed better with a 56.30% return vs 20.20%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GDMN or MOOD?

GDMN is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for MOOD.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GDMN or MOOD?

GDMN has the higher dividend yield at 3.13%, compared with 0.35% for MOOD.

What is the main difference between GDMN and MOOD?

GDMN is categorized as Commodities, while MOOD is Tactical Allocation. They also come from different issuers: WisdomTree and Relative Sentiment. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for GDMN and 0.68% for MOOD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MOOD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.32 vs 0.90), 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.