GLDM vs. TMFC

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

GLDM (SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust) and TMFC (Motley Fool 100 Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GLDM is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM, while TMFC is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Motley Fool 100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GLDM returned 17.89%/yr vs 15.26%/yr for TMFC. At a 0.07 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GLDM charges 0.10%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for TMFC.

Performance

GLDM vs. TMFC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) and Motley Fool 100 Index ETF (TMFC). 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 TMFC's 5.68% return.

GLDM

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

TMFC

• 1D: 0.28%
• 1M: -1.58%
• YTD: 5.68%
• 6M: 5.24%
• 1Y: 22.16%
• 3Y*: 25.12%
• 5Y*: 15.26%
• 10Y*: —

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

GLDM vs. TMFC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	0.30%	64.20%	27.08%	13.04%	-0.47%	-4.01%	25.10%	18.10%	1.84%
TMFC Motley Fool 100 Index ETF	5.68%	19.55%	35.17%	47.04%	-30.86%	25.30%	42.00%	34.70%	-7.24%

Correlation

The correlation between GLDM and TMFC is 0.18, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.18
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.10
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.08
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 27, 2018	0.07

The correlation between GLDM and TMFC shifts across timeframes, from 0.07 (all time) to 0.18 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

GLDM vs. TMFC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GLDM	TMFC
Basic Materials	100.0%	0.6%
Communication Services	-	17.4%
Consumer Cyclical	-	11.4%
Consumer Defensive	-	4.3%
Energy	-	1.9%
Financial Services	-	12.9%
Healthcare	-	4.8%
Industrials	-	4.0%
Real Estate	-	0.9%
Technology	-	41.4%
Utilities	-	0.5%

Return for Risk

GLDM vs. TMFC — 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

TMFC

TMFC Risk / Return Rank: 47
TMFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
TMFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 50
TMFC Omega Ratio Rank: 51
TMFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 39
TMFC Martin Ratio Rank: 43

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. TMFC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) and Motley Fool 100 Index ETF (TMFC). 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	TMFC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.15	1.61	-0.46
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.54	2.21	-0.67
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.29	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.53	1.76	-0.23
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.85	6.53	-2.68
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. TMFC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLDM Sharpe Ratio is 1.15, which is comparable to the TMFC Sharpe Ratio of 1.61. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLDM and TMFC, 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	TMFC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.15	1.61	-0.46
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.00	0.75	+0.25
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.99	0.81	+0.18

Drawdowns

GLDM vs. TMFC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLDM drawdown since its inception was -21.63%, smaller than the maximum TMFC drawdown of -33.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLDM and TMFC.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLDM	TMFC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.63%	-33.06%	+11.43%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-20.00%	-12.64%	-7.36%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.00%	-20.06%	+0.06%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.92%	-33.06%	+12.14%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-19.80%	-3.62%	-16.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.24%	-6.77%	+0.53%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.96%	3.40%	+4.56%

Volatility

GLDM vs. TMFC - Volatility Comparison

SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) has a higher volatility of 5.65% compared to Motley Fool 100 Index ETF (TMFC) at 4.14%. This indicates that GLDM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than TMFC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GLDM	TMFC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.65%	4.14%	+1.51%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.31%	10.56%	+12.75%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.65%	13.82%	+12.83%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.98%	20.41%	-2.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.89%	22.00%	-5.11%

GLDM vs. TMFC - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLDM has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is lower than TMFC's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

GLDM vs. TMFC - Dividend Comparison

GLDM has not paid dividends to shareholders, while TMFC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.14%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
TMFC Motley Fool 100 Index ETF	0.14%	0.14%	0.40%	0.26%	0.27%	0.23%	0.42%	0.50%	0.61%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLDM and TMFC in my portfolio?

GLDM and TMFC have a correlation of 0.18, 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 TMFC?

GLDM has higher volatility (5.65%) compared to TMFC (4.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLDM dropped -21.63% vs TMFC's -33.06%.

Which ETF is better, GLDM or TMFC?

On 5-year performance, GLDM leads with 17.89% vs 15.26% for TMFC. On fees, GLDM is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, TMFC has been the lower-risk option at 4.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GLDM or TMFC?

Over the 5-year period, GLDM has performed better with a 17.89% return vs 15.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLDM or TMFC?

GLDM is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for TMFC.

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

TMFC has the higher dividend yield at 0.14%, compared with 0.00% for GLDM.

What is the main difference between GLDM and TMFC?

GLDM is categorized as Gold, while TMFC is Large Cap Growth Equities. GLDM tracks LBMA Gold Price PM, while TMFC tracks Motley Fool 100 Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and Motley Fool. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for GLDM and 0.50% for TMFC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TMFC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.61 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.