GOLD.AS vs. IMID.L

Last updated Jun 20, 2026

GOLD.AS (Amundi Physical Gold ETC C) and IMID.L (SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI) are both exchange-traded funds - GOLD.AS is a Precious Metals fund tracking the LMBA Gold Price PM USD, while IMID.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GOLD.AS returned 18.81%/yr vs -41.55%/yr for IMID.L. At a 0.17 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GOLD.AS charges 0.12%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for IMID.L.

Performance

GOLD.AS vs. IMID.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Amundi Physical Gold ETC C (GOLD.AS) and SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI (IMID.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GOLD.AS achieves a -1.95% return, which is significantly higher than IMID.L's -95.52% return.

GOLD.AS

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: -6.14%
• YTD: -1.95%
• 6M: -2.70%
• 1Y: 25.54%
• 3Y*: 29.67%
• 5Y*: 18.81%
• 10Y*: —

IMID.L

• 1D: -0.15%
• 1M: 2.67%
• YTD: -95.52%
• 6M: -95.48%
• 1Y: -94.81%
• 3Y*: -59.03%
• 5Y*: -41.55%
• 10Y*: -18.53%

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

GOLD.AS vs. IMID.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
GOLD.AS Amundi Physical Gold ETC C	-1.95%	64.94%	26.36%	13.35%	-0.13%	-4.09%	24.31%	18.40%
IMID.L SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI	-95.52%	22.16%	16.31%	21.65%	-17.64%	17.85%	16.14%	12.34%

Correlation

The correlation between GOLD.AS and IMID.L is 0.37, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.37
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.26
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.24
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 23, 2019	0.17

The correlation between GOLD.AS and IMID.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.17 (all time) to 0.37 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

GOLD.AS vs. IMID.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

GOLD.AS

GOLD.AS Risk / Return Rank: 26
GOLD.AS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
GOLD.AS Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
GOLD.AS Omega Ratio Rank: 29
GOLD.AS Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
GOLD.AS Martin Ratio Rank: 25

IMID.L

IMID.L Risk / Return Rank: 1
IMID.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1
IMID.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 4
IMID.L Omega Ratio Rank: 0
IMID.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 0
IMID.L Martin Ratio Rank: 1

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.

GOLD.AS vs. IMID.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amundi Physical Gold ETC C (GOLD.AS) and SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI (IMID.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.

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.

	GOLD.AS	IMID.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.97	-0.98	+1.95
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.37	-0.71	+2.08
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	0.58	+0.61
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.10	-0.98	+2.08
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.20	-1.56	+4.76

GOLD.AS vs. IMID.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GOLD.AS Sharpe Ratio is 0.97, which is higher than the IMID.L Sharpe Ratio of -0.98. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GOLD.AS and IMID.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.

Drawdowns

GOLD.AS vs. IMID.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GOLD.AS drawdown since its inception was -23.00%, smaller than the maximum IMID.L drawdown of -96.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GOLD.AS and IMID.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	GOLD.AS	IMID.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.00%	-96.27%	+73.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-23.00%	-96.27%	+73.27%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.00%	-96.27%	+73.27%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-23.00%	-96.27%	+73.27%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-96.27%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-20.17%	-95.64%	+75.47%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.37%	-7.46%	+1.09%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.91%	60.72%	-52.81%

Volatility

GOLD.AS vs. IMID.L - Volatility Comparison

Amundi Physical Gold ETC C (GOLD.AS) has a higher volatility of 8.69% compared to SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI (IMID.L) at 4.12%. This indicates that GOLD.AS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IMID.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GOLD.AS	IMID.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.69%	4.12%	+4.57%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.15%	321.62%	-298.47%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.02%	96.79%	-70.77%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.43%	45.75%	-28.32%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.18%	36.16%	-18.98%

GOLD.AS vs. IMID.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

GOLD.AS has a 0.12% expense ratio, which is lower than IMID.L's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

GOLD.AS vs. IMID.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither GOLD.AS nor IMID.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GOLD.AS and IMID.L in my portfolio?

GOLD.AS and IMID.L have a correlation of 0.37, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, GOLD.AS or IMID.L?

On fees, GOLD.AS is cheaper at 0.12% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GOLD.AS or IMID.L?

GOLD.AS is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for IMID.L.

What is the main difference between GOLD.AS and IMID.L?

GOLD.AS is categorized as Precious Metals, while IMID.L is Global Equities. GOLD.AS tracks LMBA Gold Price PM USD, while IMID.L tracks MSCI ACWI NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.12% for GOLD.AS and 0.40% for IMID.L.