NAMM vs. GLD
Compare and contrast key facts about Namib Minerals (NAMM) and SPDR Gold Shares (GLD).
GLD is a passively managed fund by State Street that tracks the performance of the LBMA Gold Price PM. It was launched on Nov 18, 2004.
Performance
NAMM vs. GLD - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
NAMM vs. GLD - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
NAMM Namib Minerals | 128.71% | -96.76% |
GLD SPDR Gold Shares | 8.57% | 29.86% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, NAMM achieves a 128.71% return, which is significantly higher than GLD's 8.57% return.
NAMM
- 1D
- 5.00%
- 1M
- -39.21%
- YTD
- 128.71%
- 6M
- -29.79%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
GLD
- 1D
- 3.79%
- 1M
- -11.05%
- YTD
- 8.57%
- 6M
- 21.05%
- 1Y
- 49.33%
- 3Y*
- 32.92%
- 5Y*
- 21.58%
- 10Y*
- 13.92%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
NAMM vs. GLD — Risk / Return Rank
NAMM
GLD
NAMM vs. GLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Namib Minerals (NAMM) and SPDR Gold Shares (GLD). 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.
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| NAMM | GLD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | — | 1.79 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 1.22 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.88 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.41 | 0.62 | -1.03 |
Correlation
The correlation between NAMM and GLD is 0.29, 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
NAMM vs. GLD - Dividend Comparison
Neither NAMM nor GLD has paid dividends to shareholders.
Drawdowns
NAMM vs. GLD - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum NAMM drawdown since its inception was -97.05%, which is greater than GLD's maximum drawdown of -45.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NAMM and GLD.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| NAMM | GLD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -97.05% | -45.56% | -51.49% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -19.21% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -21.03% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -22.00% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -92.60% | -13.23% | -79.37% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -87.49% | -16.17% | -71.32% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 5.20% | — |
Volatility
NAMM vs. GLD - Volatility Comparison
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| NAMM | GLD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 11.06% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 24.30% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 236.86% | 27.80% | +209.06% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 236.86% | 17.74% | +219.12% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 236.86% | 15.87% | +220.99% |