GLTR vs. GLDM

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

GLTR (abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF) and GLDM (SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust) are both exchange-traded funds - GLTR is a Precious Metals fund tracking the ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index, while GLDM is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GLTR returned 15.09%/yr vs 18.61%/yr for GLDM. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. GLTR charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for GLDM.

Performance

GLTR vs. GLDM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) and SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLTR achieves a -6.33% return, which is significantly lower than GLDM's -2.87% return.

GLTR

• 1D: -0.79%
• 1M: -9.55%
• YTD: -6.33%
• 6M: -7.48%
• 1Y: 38.38%
• 3Y*: 30.43%
• 5Y*: 15.09%
• 10Y*: 11.62%

GLDM

• 1D: -0.62%
• 1M: -7.05%
• YTD: -2.87%
• 6M: -5.63%
• 1Y: 24.39%
• 3Y*: 29.61%
• 5Y*: 18.61%
• 10Y*: —

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

GLTR vs. GLDM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
GLTR abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF	-6.33%	87.25%	20.63%	2.01%	-0.25%	-9.60%	29.52%	20.96%	1.64%
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	-2.87%	64.20%	27.08%	13.04%	-0.47%	-4.01%	25.10%	18.10%	1.75%

Correlation

The correlation between GLTR and GLDM is 0.91, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.91
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.92
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 26, 2018	0.90

The correlation between GLTR and GLDM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

GLTR vs. GLDM — Risk / Return Rank

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

GLTR

GLTR Risk / Return Rank: 26
GLTR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
GLTR Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
GLTR Omega Ratio Rank: 33
GLTR Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
GLTR Martin Ratio Rank: 22

GLDM

GLDM Risk / Return Rank: 24
GLDM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 26
GLDM Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
GLDM Omega Ratio Rank: 28
GLDM Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
GLDM Martin Ratio Rank: 23

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.

GLTR vs. GLDM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) and SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM). 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.

	GLTR	GLDM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.00	0.90	+0.10
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.35	1.26	+0.08
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.19	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.13	1.01	+0.13
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.65	2.74	-0.09

GLTR vs. GLDM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLTR Sharpe Ratio is 1.00, which is comparable to the GLDM Sharpe Ratio of 0.90. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLTR and GLDM, 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

GLTR vs. GLDM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLTR drawdown since its inception was -55.70%, which is greater than GLDM's maximum drawdown of -24.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLTR and GLDM.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLTR	GLDM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-55.70%	-24.35%	-31.35%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-34.09%	-24.35%	-9.74%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-34.09%	-24.35%	-9.74%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-34.09%	-24.35%	-9.74%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-34.09%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-32.48%	-22.34%	-10.14%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-28.83%	-6.31%	-22.52%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	14.52%	8.92%	+5.60%

Volatility

GLTR vs. GLDM - Volatility Comparison

abrdn Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) has a higher volatility of 9.77% compared to SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) at 8.02%. This indicates that GLTR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GLDM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GLTR	GLDM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.77%	8.02%	+1.75%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	36.39%	24.15%	+12.24%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	38.72%	27.34%	+11.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.85%	18.13%	+5.72%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.69%	17.01%	+3.68%

GLTR vs. GLDM - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLTR has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than GLDM's 0.10% expense ratio.

Dividends

GLTR vs. GLDM - Dividend Comparison

Neither GLTR nor GLDM has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLTR and GLDM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, GLTR and GLDM move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, GLTR or GLDM?

GLTR has higher volatility (9.77%) compared to GLDM (8.02%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLTR dropped -55.70% vs GLDM's -24.35%.

Which ETF is better, GLTR or GLDM?

On 5-year performance, GLDM leads with 18.61% vs 15.09% for GLTR. On fees, GLDM is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, GLDM has been the lower-risk option at 8.02%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GLTR or GLDM?

Over the 5-year period, GLDM has performed better with a 18.61% return vs 15.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLTR or GLDM?

GLDM is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for GLTR.

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

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

What is the main difference between GLTR and GLDM?

GLTR is categorized as Precious Metals, while GLDM is Gold. GLTR tracks ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index, while GLDM tracks LBMA Gold Price PM. They also come from different issuers: abrdn and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for GLTR and 0.10% for GLDM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GLTR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.00 vs 0.90), 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.