GLDM vs. FNGS

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

GLDM (SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust) and FNGS (MicroSectors FANG+ ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - GLDM is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM, while FNGS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the NYSE FANG+ Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GLDM returned 17.41%/yr vs 19.76%/yr for FNGS. At a 0.10 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GLDM charges 0.10%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for FNGS.

Performance

GLDM vs. FNGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) and MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLDM achieves a -2.40% return, which is significantly lower than FNGS's 6.79% return.

GLDM

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

FNGS

• 1D: -0.94%
• 1M: -1.94%
• YTD: 6.79%
• 6M: 4.25%
• 1Y: 19.09%
• 3Y*: 29.80%
• 5Y*: 19.76%
• 10Y*: —

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

GLDM vs. FNGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	-2.40%	64.20%	27.08%	13.04%	-0.47%	-4.01%	25.10%	4.05%
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	6.79%	18.64%	51.99%	95.24%	-40.32%	16.96%	101.99%	10.10%

Correlation

The correlation between GLDM and FNGS 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 Nov 13, 2019	0.10

Return for Risk

GLDM vs. FNGS — 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

FNGS

FNGS Risk / Return Rank: 23
FNGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
FNGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
FNGS Omega Ratio Rank: 24
FNGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
FNGS Martin Ratio Rank: 20

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. FNGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) and MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS). 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	FNGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.90	0.79	+0.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.26	1.19	+0.07
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.15	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.00	0.75	+0.25
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.87	2.12	+0.75

GLDM vs. FNGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLDM Sharpe Ratio is 0.90, which is comparable to the FNGS Sharpe Ratio of 0.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLDM and FNGS, 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. FNGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLDM drawdown since its inception was -24.35%, smaller than the maximum FNGS drawdown of -48.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLDM and FNGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLDM	FNGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.35%	-48.98%	+24.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-24.35%	-22.93%	-1.42%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.35%	-26.77%	+2.42%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.35%	-48.98%	+24.63%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-21.96%	-9.63%	-12.33%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.27%	-10.85%	+4.58%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.44%	8.05%	+0.39%

Volatility

GLDM vs. FNGS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) is 7.73%, while MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) has a volatility of 8.74%. This indicates that GLDM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FNGS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GLDM	FNGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.73%	8.74%	-1.01%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.93%	17.19%	+6.74%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.15%	21.65%	+5.50%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.13%	30.10%	-11.97%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.98%	31.17%	-14.19%

GLDM vs. FNGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLDM has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is lower than FNGS's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

GLDM vs. FNGS - Dividend Comparison

Neither GLDM nor FNGS has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLDM and FNGS in my portfolio?

GLDM and FNGS 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.

Which is riskier, GLDM or FNGS?

FNGS has higher volatility (8.74%) compared to GLDM (7.73%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLDM dropped -24.35% vs FNGS's -48.98%.

Which ETF is better, GLDM or FNGS?

On 5-year performance, FNGS leads with 19.76% vs 17.41% for GLDM. On fees, GLDM is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, GLDM has been the lower-risk option at 7.73%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GLDM or FNGS?

Over the 5-year period, FNGS has performed better with a 19.76% return vs 17.41%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLDM or FNGS?

GLDM is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for FNGS.

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

GLDM and FNGS have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between GLDM and FNGS?

GLDM is categorized as Gold, while FNGS is Large Cap Growth Equities. GLDM tracks LBMA Gold Price PM, while FNGS tracks NYSE FANG+ Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for GLDM and 0.58% for FNGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GLDM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.90 vs 0.79), 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.