ICOP vs. GLDM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ICOP (iShares Copper and Metals Mining ETF) and GLDM (SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust) are both exchange-traded funds - ICOP is a Commodity Producers Equities fund tracking the STOXX Global Copper and Metals Mining Index, while GLDM is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, ICOP returned 102.60% vs 32.42% for GLDM. A 0.51 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ICOP charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for GLDM.

Performance

ICOP vs. GLDM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Copper and Metals Mining ETF (ICOP) 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, ICOP achieves a 27.29% return, which is significantly higher than GLDM's 3.00% return.

ICOP

• 1D: -3.29%
• 1M: 17.09%
• YTD: 27.29%
• 6M: 37.08%
• 1Y: 102.60%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GLDM

• 1D: -0.96%
• 1M: -1.62%
• YTD: 3.00%
• 6M: 5.60%
• 1Y: 32.42%
• 3Y*: 31.49%
• 5Y*: 18.49%
• 10Y*: —

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

ICOP vs. GLDM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ICOP iShares Copper and Metals Mining ETF	27.29%	78.01%	1.10%	8.08%
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	3.00%	64.20%	27.08%	7.43%

Correlation

The correlation between ICOP and GLDM is 0.58, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.58
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 26, 2023	0.51

The correlation between ICOP and GLDM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.51 to 0.58 - a consistent structural relationship.

ICOP vs. GLDM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ICOP	GLDM
Basic Materials	100.0%	100.0%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

ICOP vs. GLDM — Risk / Return Rank

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

ICOP

ICOP Risk / Return Rank: 74
ICOP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
ICOP Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
ICOP Omega Ratio Rank: 68
ICOP Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
ICOP Martin Ratio Rank: 75

GLDM

GLDM Risk / Return Rank: 32
GLDM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
GLDM Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
GLDM Omega Ratio Rank: 36
GLDM Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
GLDM Martin Ratio Rank: 29

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.

ICOP vs. GLDM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Copper and Metals Mining ETF (ICOP) 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.

	ICOP	GLDM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.77	1.24	+1.53
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.11	1.63	+1.48
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.25	+0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.95	1.70	+2.25
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.50	4.23	+10.27
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ICOP vs. GLDM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ICOP Sharpe Ratio is 2.77, which is higher than the GLDM Sharpe Ratio of 1.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ICOP 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ICOP	GLDM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.77	1.24	+1.53
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	1.04	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.08	1.02	+0.06

Drawdowns

ICOP vs. GLDM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ICOP drawdown since its inception was -38.67%, which is greater than GLDM's maximum drawdown of -21.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ICOP and GLDM.

Drawdown Indicators

	ICOP	GLDM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-38.67%	-21.63%	-17.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-26.13%	-19.14%	-6.99%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-19.14%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-20.92%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.29%	-17.65%	+14.36%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.67%	-6.22%	-5.45%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.10%	7.69%	-0.59%

Volatility

ICOP vs. GLDM - Volatility Comparison

iShares Copper and Metals Mining ETF (ICOP) has a higher volatility of 13.69% compared to SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) at 5.47%. This indicates that ICOP'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

	ICOP	GLDM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.69%	5.47%	+8.22%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	32.28%	22.99%	+9.29%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	37.29%	26.39%	+10.90%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	33.77%	17.91%	+15.86%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	33.77%	16.85%	+16.92%

ICOP vs. GLDM - Expense Ratio Comparison

ICOP has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is higher than GLDM's 0.10% expense ratio.

Dividends

ICOP vs. GLDM - Dividend Comparison

ICOP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.63%, while GLDM has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ICOP iShares Copper and Metals Mining ETF	1.63%	2.08%	1.87%	2.15%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ICOP and GLDM in my portfolio?

ICOP and GLDM have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ICOP or GLDM?

ICOP has higher volatility (13.69%) compared to GLDM (5.47%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ICOP dropped -38.67% vs GLDM's -21.63%.

Which ETF is better, ICOP or GLDM?

On 1-year performance, ICOP leads with 102.60% vs 32.42% for GLDM. On fees, GLDM is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, GLDM has been the lower-risk option at 5.47%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ICOP or GLDM?

Over the 1-year period, ICOP has performed better with a 102.60% return vs 32.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ICOP or GLDM?

GLDM is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.47% for ICOP.

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

ICOP has the higher dividend yield at 1.63%, compared with 0.00% for GLDM.

What is the main difference between ICOP and GLDM?

ICOP is categorized as Commodity Producers Equities, while GLDM is Gold. ICOP tracks STOXX Global Copper and Metals Mining Index, while GLDM tracks LBMA Gold Price PM. They also come from different issuers: iShares and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for ICOP and 0.10% for GLDM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ICOP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.77 vs 1.24), 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.