GLDM vs. XNAS.L

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

GLDM (SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust) and XNAS.L (Xtrackers NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GLDM is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM, while XNAS.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GLDM returned 17.89%/yr vs 25.23%/yr for XNAS.L. At a 0.06 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GLDM charges 0.10%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for XNAS.L.

Performance

GLDM vs. XNAS.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) and Xtrackers NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (XNAS.L). 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 XNAS.L's 16.34% return.

GLDM

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

XNAS.L

• 1D: -0.36%
• 1M: 1.62%
• YTD: 16.34%
• 6M: 15.52%
• 1Y: 36.22%
• 3Y*: 27.22%
• 5Y*: 25.23%
• 10Y*: —

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

GLDM vs. XNAS.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	0.30%	64.20%	27.08%	13.04%	-0.47%	-2.36%
XNAS.L Xtrackers NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF	16.34%	19.82%	26.59%	88.40%	-25.44%	-8.88%

Correlation

The correlation between GLDM and XNAS.L is 0.17, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.17
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.10
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.05
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 21, 2021	0.06

The correlation between GLDM and XNAS.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.05 (5 years) to 0.17 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

GLDM vs. XNAS.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GLDM	XNAS.L
Basic Materials	100.0%	1.1%
Communication Services	-	15.8%
Consumer Cyclical	-	12.2%
Consumer Defensive	-	7.7%
Energy	-	0.6%
Financial Services	-	0.2%
Healthcare	-	4.2%
Industrials	-	3.1%
Real Estate	-	0.1%
Technology	-	53.7%
Utilities	-	1.4%

Return for Risk

GLDM vs. XNAS.L — 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

XNAS.L

XNAS.L Risk / Return Rank: 74
XNAS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
XNAS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
XNAS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 74
XNAS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
XNAS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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. XNAS.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) and Xtrackers NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (XNAS.L). 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	XNAS.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.15	2.26	-1.10
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.54	3.13	-1.59
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.39	-0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.53	3.30	-1.77
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.85	11.81	-7.96
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. XNAS.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLDM Sharpe Ratio is 1.15, which is lower than the XNAS.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.26. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLDM and XNAS.L, 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	XNAS.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.15	2.26	-1.10
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.00	1.11	-0.11
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.99	0.65	+0.34

Drawdowns

GLDM vs. XNAS.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLDM drawdown since its inception was -21.63%, smaller than the maximum XNAS.L drawdown of -34.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLDM and XNAS.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLDM	XNAS.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.63%	-34.26%	+12.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-20.00%	-10.91%	-9.09%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.00%	-22.92%	+2.92%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.92%	-27.52%	+6.60%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-19.80%	-3.52%	-16.28%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.24%	-10.37%	+4.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.96%	3.06%	+4.90%

Volatility

GLDM vs. XNAS.L - Volatility Comparison

SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) and Xtrackers NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (XNAS.L) have volatilities of 5.65% and 5.49%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GLDM	XNAS.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.65%	5.49%	+0.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.31%	12.01%	+11.30%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.65%	16.02%	+10.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.98%	22.70%	-4.72%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.89%	25.23%	-8.34%

GLDM vs. XNAS.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLDM has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is lower than XNAS.L's 0.20% 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. XNAS.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither GLDM nor XNAS.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLDM and XNAS.L in my portfolio?

GLDM and XNAS.L have a correlation of 0.17, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, GLDM or XNAS.L?

On fees, GLDM is cheaper at 0.10% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLDM or XNAS.L?

GLDM is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for XNAS.L.

What is the main difference between GLDM and XNAS.L?

GLDM is categorized as Gold, while XNAS.L is Nasdaq-100. GLDM tracks LBMA Gold Price PM, while XNAS.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and Xtrackers. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for GLDM and 0.20% for XNAS.L.