GLDM vs. TCAF

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

GLDM (SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust) and TCAF (T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation Equity ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GLDM is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM, while TCAF is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by T. Rowe Price. GLDM is passively managed, while TCAF is actively managed. Over the past year, GLDM returned 30.55% vs 17.40% for TCAF. At a 0.17 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GLDM charges 0.10%/yr vs 0.31%/yr for TCAF.

Performance

GLDM vs. TCAF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) and T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation Equity ETF (TCAF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLDM achieves a 0.30% return, which is significantly lower than TCAF's 4.53% return.

GLDM

• 1D: 0.25%
• 1M: -8.41%
• YTD: 0.30%
• 6M: 3.19%
• 1Y: 30.55%
• 3Y*: 30.08%
• 5Y*: 17.89%
• 10Y*: —

TCAF

• 1D: -0.20%
• 1M: -0.52%
• YTD: 4.53%
• 6M: 5.02%
• 1Y: 17.40%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GLDM vs. TCAF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	0.30%	64.20%	27.08%	5.25%
TCAF T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation Equity ETF	4.53%	15.45%	20.93%	8.40%

Correlation

The correlation between GLDM and TCAF is 0.21, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.21
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 16, 2023	0.17

GLDM vs. TCAF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GLDM	TCAF
Basic Materials	100.0%	0.1%
Communication Services	-	11.4%
Consumer Cyclical	-	10.6%
Consumer Defensive	-	3.3%
Energy	-	2.6%
Financial Services	-	6.0%
Healthcare	-	17.3%
Industrials	-	4.6%
Real Estate	-	0.1%
Technology	-	33.7%
Utilities	-	8.6%

Return for Risk

GLDM vs. TCAF — Risk / Return Rank

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

GLDM

GLDM Risk / Return Rank: 34
GLDM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
GLDM Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
GLDM Omega Ratio Rank: 39
GLDM Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
GLDM Martin Ratio Rank: 29

TCAF

TCAF Risk / Return Rank: 44
TCAF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
TCAF Sortino Ratio Rank: 46
TCAF Omega Ratio Rank: 47
TCAF Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
TCAF Martin Ratio Rank: 42

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. TCAF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) and T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation Equity ETF (TCAF). 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.

	GLDM	TCAF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.15	1.50	-0.34
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.54	2.07	-0.53
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.27	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.53	1.54	-0.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.85	6.15	-2.30
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GLDM vs. TCAF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLDM Sharpe Ratio is 1.15, which is comparable to the TCAF Sharpe Ratio of 1.50. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLDM and TCAF, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GLDM	TCAF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.15	1.50	-0.34
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.00	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.99	1.20	-0.21

Drawdowns

GLDM vs. TCAF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLDM drawdown since its inception was -21.63%, which is greater than TCAF's maximum drawdown of -16.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLDM and TCAF.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLDM	TCAF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.63%	-16.37%	-5.26%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-20.00%	-11.33%	-8.67%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.00%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.92%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-19.80%	-2.82%	-16.98%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.24%	-2.06%	-4.18%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.96%	2.83%	+5.13%

Volatility

GLDM vs. TCAF - Volatility Comparison

SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) has a higher volatility of 5.65% compared to T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation Equity ETF (TCAF) at 3.25%. This indicates that GLDM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than TCAF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GLDM	TCAF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.65%	3.25%	+2.40%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.31%	9.05%	+14.26%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.65%	11.68%	+14.97%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.98%	13.98%	+4.00%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.89%	13.98%	+2.91%

GLDM vs. TCAF - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLDM has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is lower than TCAF's 0.31% expense ratio.

Dividends

GLDM vs. TCAF - Dividend Comparison

GLDM has not paid dividends to shareholders, while TCAF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.48%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
TCAF T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation Equity ETF	0.48%	0.50%	0.43%	0.26%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLDM and TCAF in my portfolio?

GLDM and TCAF have a correlation of 0.21, 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 TCAF?

GLDM has higher volatility (5.65%) compared to TCAF (3.25%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLDM dropped -21.63% vs TCAF's -16.37%.

Which ETF is better, GLDM or TCAF?

On 1-year performance, GLDM leads with 30.55% vs 17.40% for TCAF. On fees, GLDM is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, TCAF has been the lower-risk option at 3.25%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GLDM or TCAF?

Over the 1-year period, GLDM has performed better with a 30.55% return vs 17.40%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLDM or TCAF?

GLDM is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.31% for TCAF.

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

TCAF has the higher dividend yield at 0.48%, compared with 0.00% for GLDM.

What is the main difference between GLDM and TCAF?

GLDM is categorized as Gold, while TCAF is Large Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: State Street and T. Rowe Price. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for GLDM and 0.31% for TCAF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TCAF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.50 vs 1.15), 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.