GLDM vs. ATZ.TO

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

GLDM (SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust) is Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM, while ATZ.TO (Aritzia Inc.) is a stock. Over the past 5 years, GLDM returned 17.41%/yr vs 34.44%/yr for ATZ.TO. At a 0.04 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

GLDM vs. ATZ.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) and Aritzia Inc. (ATZ.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

GLDM is traded in USD, while ATZ.TO is traded in CAD. To make them comparable, the ATZ.TO values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLDM achieves a -2.40% return, which is significantly lower than ATZ.TO's 40.75% return.

GLDM

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

ATZ.TO

• 1D: 1.41%
• 1M: 18.58%
• YTD: 40.75%
• 6M: 45.97%
• 1Y: 151.51%
• 3Y*: 64.97%
• 5Y*: 34.44%
• 10Y*: —

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

GLDM vs. ATZ.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	-2.40%	64.20%	27.08%	13.04%	-0.47%	-4.01%	25.10%	18.10%	1.75%
ATZ.TO Aritzia Inc.	40.75%	130.10%	79.16%	-40.51%	-14.94%	103.09%	38.67%	21.15%	1.31%

Correlation

The correlation between GLDM and ATZ.TO 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 Jun 26, 2018	0.04

The correlation between GLDM and ATZ.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.04 (all time) to 0.15 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

GLDM vs. ATZ.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

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

ATZ.TO

ATZ.TO Risk / Return Rank: 96
ATZ.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
ATZ.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
ATZ.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 96
ATZ.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
ATZ.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 95

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.

GLDM vs. ATZ.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) and Aritzia Inc. (ATZ.TO). 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.

	GLDM	ATZ.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.90	3.93	-3.03
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.26	4.17	-2.91
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.55	-0.37
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.00	6.51	-5.51
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.87	18.75	-15.88

GLDM vs. ATZ.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLDM Sharpe Ratio is 0.90, which is lower than the ATZ.TO Sharpe Ratio of 3.93. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLDM and ATZ.TO, 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

GLDM vs. ATZ.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLDM drawdown since its inception was -24.35%, smaller than the maximum ATZ.TO drawdown of -68.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLDM and ATZ.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLDM	ATZ.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.35%	-68.29%	+43.94%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-24.35%	-22.22%	-2.13%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.35%	-46.23%	+21.88%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.35%	-68.29%	+43.94%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-21.96%	0.00%	-21.96%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.27%	-21.44%	+15.17%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.44%	7.70%	+0.74%

Volatility

GLDM vs. ATZ.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) is 7.73%, while Aritzia Inc. (ATZ.TO) has a volatility of 10.34%. This indicates that GLDM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ATZ.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GLDM	ATZ.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.73%	10.34%	-2.61%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.93%	30.40%	-6.47%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.15%	36.88%	-9.73%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.13%	47.26%	-29.13%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.98%	43.72%	-26.74%

Dividends

GLDM vs. ATZ.TO - Dividend Comparison

Neither GLDM nor ATZ.TO has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLDM and ATZ.TO in my portfolio?

GLDM and ATZ.TO 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.