PALL vs. GLDM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PALL (Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF) and GLDM (SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust) are both exchange-traded funds - PALL is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Palladium London PM Fix ($/ozt), while GLDM is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, PALL returned -14.89%/yr vs 18.49%/yr for GLDM. At a 0.39 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PALL charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for GLDM.

Performance

PALL vs. GLDM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF (PALL) 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, PALL achieves a -18.39% return, which is significantly lower than GLDM's 3.00% return.

PALL

• 1D: -4.89%
• 1M: -11.74%
• YTD: -18.39%
• 6M: -11.90%
• 1Y: 28.17%
• 3Y*: -3.26%
• 5Y*: -14.89%
• 10Y*: 8.36%

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)

PALL vs. GLDM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
PALL Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF	-18.39%	74.07%	-17.38%	-38.77%	-6.28%	-23.26%	25.27%	53.94%	30.41%
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	3.00%	64.20%	27.08%	13.04%	-0.47%	-4.01%	25.10%	18.10%	1.84%

Correlation

The correlation between PALL and GLDM is 0.55, 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	0.55
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.46
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.45
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 27, 2018	0.39

The correlation between PALL and GLDM shifts across timeframes, from 0.39 (all time) to 0.55 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

PALL vs. GLDM — Risk / Return Rank

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

PALL

PALL Risk / Return Rank: 19
PALL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
PALL Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
PALL Omega Ratio Rank: 21
PALL Calmar Ratio Rank: 19
PALL Martin Ratio Rank: 17

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.

PALL vs. GLDM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF (PALL) 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.

	PALL	GLDM	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.56	1.24	-0.67
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.04	1.63	-0.59
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.25	-0.10
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.78	1.70	-0.92
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	1.74	4.23	-2.49
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PALL vs. GLDM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PALL Sharpe Ratio is 0.56, which is lower than the GLDM Sharpe Ratio of 1.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PALL 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

	PALL	GLDM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.56	1.24	-0.67
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.35	1.04	-1.39
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.22	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.18	1.02	-0.84

Drawdowns

PALL vs. GLDM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PALL drawdown since its inception was -73.63%, which is greater than GLDM's maximum drawdown of -21.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PALL and GLDM.

Drawdown Indicators

	PALL	GLDM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-73.63%	-21.63%	-52.00%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-36.18%	-19.14%	-17.04%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-40.47%	-19.14%	-21.33%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-73.63%	-20.92%	-52.71%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-73.63%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-59.78%	-17.65%	-42.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-26.81%	-6.22%	-20.59%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	16.25%	7.69%	+8.56%

Volatility

PALL vs. GLDM - Volatility Comparison

Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares ETF (PALL) has a higher volatility of 10.54% compared to SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) at 5.47%. This indicates that PALL'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

	PALL	GLDM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.54%	5.47%	+5.07%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	41.87%	22.99%	+18.88%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	50.24%	26.39%	+23.85%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	42.46%	17.91%	+24.55%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	37.91%	16.85%	+21.06%

PALL vs. GLDM - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

PALL vs. GLDM - Dividend Comparison

Neither PALL nor GLDM has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PALL and GLDM in my portfolio?

PALL and GLDM have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PALL or GLDM?

PALL has higher volatility (10.54%) compared to GLDM (5.47%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PALL dropped -73.63% vs GLDM's -21.63%.

Which ETF is better, PALL or GLDM?

On 5-year performance, GLDM leads with 18.49% vs -14.89% for PALL. 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, PALL or GLDM?

Over the 5-year period, GLDM has performed better with a 18.49% return vs -14.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PALL or GLDM?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between PALL and GLDM?

PALL is categorized as Precious Metals, while GLDM is Gold. PALL tracks Palladium London PM Fix ($/ozt), while GLDM tracks LBMA Gold Price PM. They also come from different issuers: Aberdeen and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for PALL and 0.10% for GLDM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GLDM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.24 vs 0.56), 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.