PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
GLDM vs. ESGV
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

GLDM vs. ESGV - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLDM achieves a -7.59% return, which is significantly lower than ESGV's 7.69% return.


GLDM

1D
-3.01%
1M
-11.57%
YTD
-7.59%
6M
-11.06%
1Y
19.86%
3Y*
27.48%
5Y*
17.40%
10Y*

ESGV

1D
-0.05%
1M
-1.17%
YTD
7.69%
6M
6.35%
1Y
21.75%
3Y*
20.56%
5Y*
11.52%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GLDM vs. ESGV - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
GLDM
SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust
-7.59%64.20%27.08%13.04%-0.47%-4.01%25.10%18.10%6.57%
ESGV
Vanguard ESG U.S. Stock ETF
7.69%16.48%24.69%30.79%-24.04%26.55%25.69%33.36%-14.45%

Correlation

The correlation between GLDM and ESGV is 0.27, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.27

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.16

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.12

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 20, 2018

0.08

The correlation between GLDM and ESGV shifts across timeframes, from 0.08 (all time) to 0.27 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

GLDM vs. ESGV — Risk / Return Rank

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

GLDM
GLDM Risk / Return Rank: 2121
Overall Rank
GLDM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2222
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GLDM Sortino Ratio Rank: 2020
Sortino Ratio Rank
GLDM Omega Ratio Rank: 2424
Omega Ratio Rank
GLDM Calmar Ratio Rank: 1919
Calmar Ratio Rank
GLDM Martin Ratio Rank: 2020
Martin Ratio Rank

ESGV
ESGV Risk / Return Rank: 4747
Overall Rank
ESGV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5050
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ESGV Sortino Ratio Rank: 4848
Sortino Ratio Rank
ESGV Omega Ratio Rank: 4949
Omega Ratio Rank
ESGV Calmar Ratio Rank: 4141
Calmar Ratio Rank
ESGV Martin Ratio Rank: 5050
Martin Ratio Rank
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. ESGV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) and Vanguard ESG U.S. Stock ETF (ESGV). 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.


GLDMESGVDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.83

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.08

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.16

1.28

-0.13

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.76

1.88

-1.12

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2.17

7.84

-5.67

GLDM vs. ESGV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLDM Sharpe Ratio is 0.73, which is lower than the ESGV Sharpe Ratio of 1.55. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLDM and ESGV, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

GLDM vs. ESGV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLDM drawdown since its inception was -26.11%, smaller than the maximum ESGV drawdown of -33.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLDM and ESGV.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


GLDMESGVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-26.11%

-33.66%

+7.55%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-26.11%

-11.60%

-14.51%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-26.11%

-20.41%

-5.70%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-26.11%

-28.81%

+2.70%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-26.11%

-3.61%

-22.50%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.33%

-6.40%

+0.07%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

9.19%

2.78%

+6.41%

Volatility

GLDM vs. ESGV - Volatility Comparison

SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) has a higher volatility of 8.56% compared to Vanguard ESG U.S. Stock ETF (ESGV) at 5.59%. This indicates that GLDM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ESGV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


GLDMESGVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.56%

5.59%

+2.97%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

24.41%

11.22%

+13.19%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

27.53%

14.12%

+13.41%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.20%

18.48%

-0.28%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.05%

20.59%

-3.54%

GLDM vs. ESGV - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLDM has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is higher than ESGV's 0.09% expense ratio. However, 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. ESGV - Dividend Comparison

GLDM has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ESGV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.89%.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018
ESGV
Vanguard ESG U.S. Stock ETF
0.89%0.91%1.04%1.16%1.42%0.95%1.11%1.27%0.28%
GLDM
SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


GLDM and ESGV have a correlation of 0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

GLDM has higher volatility (8.56%) compared to ESGV (5.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLDM dropped -26.11% vs ESGV's -33.66%.

On 5-year performance, GLDM leads with 17.40% vs 11.52% for ESGV. On fees, ESGV is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, ESGV has been the lower-risk option at 5.59%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, GLDM has performed better with a 17.40% return vs 11.52%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

ESGV is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.10% for GLDM.

ESGV has the higher dividend yield at 0.89%, compared with 0.00% for GLDM.

GLDM is categorized as Gold, while ESGV is Large Cap Blend Equities. GLDM tracks LBMA Gold Price PM, while ESGV tracks FTSE US All Cap Choice Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and Vanguard. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for GLDM and 0.09% for ESGV.

ESGV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.55 vs 0.73), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GLDM and ESGV

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer