GMF vs. GLDM
Compare and contrast key facts about SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF) and SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM).
GMF and GLDM are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. GMF is a passively managed fund by State Street that tracks the performance of the S&P Asia Pacific Emerging BMI Index. It was launched on Mar 19, 2007. GLDM is a passively managed fund by State Street that tracks the performance of the LBMA Gold PM Price. It was launched on Jun 25, 2018. Both GMF and GLDM are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Performance
GMF vs. GLDM - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
GMF vs. GLDM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GMF SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF | -1.90% | 21.99% | 16.55% | 8.20% | -18.99% | -1.93% | 24.96% | 19.92% | -10.56% |
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust | 8.57% | 64.20% | 27.08% | 13.04% | -0.47% | -4.01% | 25.10% | 18.10% | 1.84% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GMF achieves a -1.90% return, which is significantly lower than GLDM's 8.57% return.
GMF
- 1D
- 2.82%
- 1M
- -8.44%
- YTD
- -1.90%
- 6M
- -1.22%
- 1Y
- 19.57%
- 3Y*
- 13.03%
- 5Y*
- 2.75%
- 10Y*
- 8.54%
GLDM
- 1D
- 3.77%
- 1M
- -10.99%
- YTD
- 8.57%
- 6M
- 21.24%
- 1Y
- 49.77%
- 3Y*
- 33.33%
- 5Y*
- 21.91%
- 10Y*
- —
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
GMF vs. GLDM - Expense Ratio Comparison
GMF has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than GLDM's 0.10% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
GMF vs. GLDM — Risk / Return Rank
GMF
GLDM
GMF vs. GLDM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF) 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.
| GMF | GLDM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 1.06 | 1.82 | -0.76 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 1.56 | 2.25 | -0.69 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.22 | 1.33 | -0.12 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.48 | 2.71 | -1.23 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.64 | 10.04 | -4.40 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| GMF | GLDM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.06 | 1.82 | -0.76 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.15 | 1.25 | -1.10 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.45 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.27 | 1.09 | -0.83 |
Correlation
The correlation between GMF and GLDM is 0.19, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.
Dividends
GMF vs. GLDM - Dividend Comparison
GMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.52%, while GLDM has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GMF SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF | 1.52% | 1.49% | 1.92% | 2.75% | 2.54% | 2.71% | 1.32% | 1.75% | 2.26% | 1.70% | 2.49% | 3.76% |
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Drawdowns
GMF vs. GLDM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GMF drawdown since its inception was -67.18%, which is greater than GLDM's maximum drawdown of -21.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GMF and GLDM.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| GMF | GLDM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -67.18% | -21.63% | -45.55% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -13.03% | -19.14% | +6.11% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -36.10% | -20.92% | -15.18% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -40.18% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -10.16% | -13.19% | +3.03% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -16.72% | -6.04% | -10.68% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.43% | 5.16% | -1.73% |
Volatility
GMF vs. GLDM - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF) is 7.44%, while SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) has a volatility of 11.01%. This indicates that GMF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GLDM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| GMF | GLDM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.44% | 11.01% | -3.57% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.56% | 24.07% | -11.51% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 18.54% | 27.57% | -9.03% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.37% | 17.65% | +0.72% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 19.12% | 16.77% | +2.35% |