GLDM vs. AVLV

Last updated Jul 21, 2026

GLDM (SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust) and AVLV (Avantis U.S. Large Cap Value ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GLDM is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM, while AVLV is a Large Cap Value Equities fund actively managed by Avantis. GLDM is passively managed, while AVLV is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, GLDM returned 26.73%/yr vs 20.50%/yr for AVLV. At a 0.13 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GLDM charges 0.10%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for AVLV.

Performance

GLDM vs. AVLV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) and Avantis U.S. Large Cap Value ETF (AVLV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLDM achieves a -7.15% return, which is significantly lower than AVLV's 21.22% return.

GLDM

• 1D: -0.23%
• 1M: -5.00%
• 6M: -12.61%
• YTD: -7.15%
• 1Y: 19.54%
• 3Y*: 26.73%
• 5Y*: 17.18%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 15.27%

AVLV

• 1D: -0.38%
• 1M: 0.38%
• 6M: 15.69%
• YTD: 21.22%
• 1Y: 33.92%
• 3Y*: 20.50%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 14.64%

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

GLDM vs. AVLV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	-7.15%	64.20%	27.08%	13.04%	-0.47%	3.41%
AVLV Avantis U.S. Large Cap Value ETF	21.22%	15.12%	17.49%	17.43%	-5.53%	6.27%

Correlation

The correlation between GLDM and AVLV is 0.24, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.24
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.16
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 23, 2021	0.13

The correlation between GLDM and AVLV shifts across timeframes, from 0.13 (all time) to 0.24 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

GLDM vs. AVLV — Risk / Return Rank

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

GLDM

GLDM Risk / Return Rank: 24
GLDM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 26
GLDM Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
GLDM Omega Ratio Rank: 28
GLDM Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
GLDM Martin Ratio Rank: 21

AVLV

AVLV Risk / Return Rank: 94
AVLV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
AVLV Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
AVLV Omega Ratio Rank: 93
AVLV Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
AVLV 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. AVLV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) and Avantis U.S. Large Cap Value ETF (AVLV). 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	AVLV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.71	2.75	-2.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.05	3.85	-2.80
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	1.50	-0.35
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.75	5.33	-4.58
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.75	21.13	-19.39

GLDM vs. AVLV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLDM Sharpe Ratio is 0.71, which is lower than the AVLV Sharpe Ratio of 2.75. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLDM and AVLV, 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. AVLV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLDM drawdown since its inception was -26.27%, which is greater than AVLV's maximum drawdown of -19.50%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLDM and AVLV.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLDM	AVLV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.27%	-19.50%	-6.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-26.27%	-6.39%	-19.88%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.27%	-19.50%	-6.77%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.27%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-25.76%	-0.77%	-24.99%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.48%	-3.85%	-2.63%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.22%	1.61%	+9.61%

Volatility

GLDM vs. AVLV - Volatility Comparison

SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) has a higher volatility of 6.39% compared to Avantis U.S. Large Cap Value ETF (AVLV) at 2.31%. This indicates that GLDM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than AVLV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GLDM	AVLV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.39%	2.31%	+4.08%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.04%	9.10%	+14.94%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.86%	12.41%	+15.45%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.32%	17.22%	+1.10%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.07%	17.22%	-0.15%

GLDM vs. AVLV - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLDM has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is lower than AVLV's 0.15% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

GLDM vs. AVLV - Dividend Comparison

GLDM has not paid dividends to shareholders, while AVLV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.07%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
AVLV Avantis U.S. Large Cap Value ETF	1.07%	1.33%	1.58%	1.85%	2.00%	0.29%
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLDM and AVLV in my portfolio?

GLDM and AVLV have a correlation of 0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GLDM or AVLV?

GLDM has higher volatility (6.39%) compared to AVLV (2.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLDM dropped -26.27% vs AVLV's -19.50%.

Which ETF is better, GLDM or AVLV?

On 3-year performance, GLDM leads with 26.73% vs 20.50% for AVLV. On fees, GLDM is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, AVLV has been the lower-risk option at 2.31%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GLDM or AVLV?

Over the 3-year period, GLDM has performed better with a 26.73% return vs 20.50%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLDM or AVLV?

GLDM is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.15% for AVLV.

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

AVLV has the higher dividend yield at 1.07%, compared with 0.00% for GLDM.

What is the main difference between GLDM and AVLV?

GLDM is categorized as Gold, while AVLV is Large Cap Value Equities. They also come from different issuers: State Street and Avantis. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for GLDM and 0.15% for AVLV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

AVLV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.75 vs 0.71), 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.