GLDX.TO vs. BAM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GLDX.TO (Global X Gold Producers Index ETF) is Commodity Producers Equities fund tracking the Mirae Asset North American Listed Gold Producers Index, while BAM (Brookfield Asset Management Inc.) is a stock. Over the past year, GLDX.TO returned 75.31% vs -15.79% for BAM. At a 0.05 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

GLDX.TO vs. BAM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Global X Gold Producers Index ETF (GLDX.TO) and Brookfield Asset Management Inc. (BAM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

GLDX.TO is traded in CAD, while BAM is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the BAM values have been converted to CAD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLDX.TO achieves a -0.91% return, which is significantly higher than BAM's -10.70% return.

GLDX.TO

• 1D: -2.71%
• 1M: 1.05%
• YTD: -0.91%
• 6M: 4.54%
• 1Y: 75.31%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BAM

• 1D: -4.85%
• 1M: -2.03%
• YTD: -10.70%
• 6M: -13.29%
• 1Y: -15.79%
• 3Y*: 18.01%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GLDX.TO vs. BAM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GLDX.TO Global X Gold Producers Index ETF	-0.91%	178.05%	-11.40%
BAM Brookfield Asset Management Inc.	-10.70%	-4.82%	1.22%

Correlation

The correlation between GLDX.TO and BAM is 0.11, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.11
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 8, 2024	0.05

Return for Risk

GLDX.TO vs. BAM — Risk / Return Rank

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

GLDX.TO

GLDX.TO Risk / Return Rank: 45
GLDX.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
GLDX.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
GLDX.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 45
GLDX.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
GLDX.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 41

BAM

BAM Risk / Return Rank: 18
BAM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
BAM Sortino Ratio Rank: 17
BAM Omega Ratio Rank: 17
BAM Calmar Ratio Rank: 21
BAM Martin Ratio Rank: 19

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.

GLDX.TO vs. BAM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Gold Producers Index ETF (GLDX.TO) and Brookfield Asset Management Inc. (BAM). 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.

	GLDX.TO	BAM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.64	-0.55	+2.19
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.03	-0.59	+2.62
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	0.93	+0.36
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.51	-0.53	+3.04
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.46	-1.00	+7.46
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GLDX.TO vs. BAM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLDX.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.64, which is higher than the BAM Sharpe Ratio of -0.55. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLDX.TO and BAM, 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

	GLDX.TO	BAM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.64	-0.55	+2.19
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.77	0.54	+1.23

Drawdowns

GLDX.TO vs. BAM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLDX.TO drawdown since its inception was -30.14%, roughly equal to the maximum BAM drawdown of -30.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLDX.TO and BAM.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLDX.TO	BAM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-30.14%	-30.65%	+0.51%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-30.14%	-30.16%	+0.02%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-30.65%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-25.82%	-25.11%	-0.71%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.68%	-8.87%	+2.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.70%	15.86%	-4.16%

Volatility

GLDX.TO vs. BAM - Volatility Comparison

Global X Gold Producers Index ETF (GLDX.TO) has a higher volatility of 15.15% compared to Brookfield Asset Management Inc. (BAM) at 9.53%. This indicates that GLDX.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BAM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GLDX.TO	BAM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	15.15%	9.53%	+5.62%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	36.17%	22.01%	+14.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	46.13%	29.02%	+17.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	43.64%	28.82%	+14.82%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	43.64%	28.82%	+14.82%

Dividends

GLDX.TO vs. BAM - Dividend Comparison

GLDX.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.98%, less than BAM's 4.15% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BAM Brookfield Asset Management Inc.	4.15%	3.34%	2.80%	3.19%
GLDX.TO Global X Gold Producers Index ETF	0.98%	0.97%	0.08%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLDX.TO and BAM in my portfolio?

GLDX.TO and BAM have a correlation of 0.11, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.