RWR vs. GLDM
RWR (SPDR Dow Jones REIT ETF) and GLDM (SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust) are both exchange-traded funds - RWR is a REIT fund tracking the Dow Jones U.S. Select REIT Index, while GLDM is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, RWR returned 4.15%/yr vs 18.49%/yr for GLDM. At a 0.12 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RWR charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for GLDM.
Performance
RWR vs. GLDM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, RWR achieves a 11.08% return, which is significantly higher than GLDM's 3.00% return.
RWR
- 1D
- 0.27%
- 1M
- -0.13%
- YTD
- 11.08%
- 6M
- 9.50%
- 1Y
- 15.44%
- 3Y*
- 11.00%
- 5Y*
- 4.15%
- 10Y*
- 5.15%
GLDM
- 1D
- -0.96%
- 1M
- -1.62%
- YTD
- 3.00%
- 6M
- 5.60%
- 1Y
- 32.42%
- 3Y*
- 31.49%
- 5Y*
- 18.49%
- 10Y*
- —
RWR vs. GLDM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RWR SPDR Dow Jones REIT ETF | 11.08% | 3.20% | 7.74% | 13.76% | -26.09% | 45.47% | -11.40% | 22.71% | -5.27% |
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 RWR and GLDM is 0.18, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.18 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.15 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.16 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 27, 2018 | 0.12 |
RWR vs. GLDM - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
RWR
GLDM
Real Estate
-
Financial Services
-
Utilities
-
Basic Materials
-
Communication Services
-
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
-
Consumer Defensive
-
-
Energy
-
-
Healthcare
-
-
Industrials
-
-
Technology
-
-
Real Estate
RWR
GLDM
-
Financial Services
RWR
GLDM
-
Utilities
RWR
GLDM
-
Basic Materials
RWR
-
GLDM
Communication Services
RWR
-
GLDM
-
Consumer Cyclical
RWR
-
GLDM
-
Consumer Defensive
RWR
-
GLDM
-
Energy
RWR
-
GLDM
-
Healthcare
RWR
-
GLDM
-
Industrials
RWR
-
GLDM
-
Technology
RWR
-
GLDM
-
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
RWR vs. GLDM — Risk / Return Rank
RWR
GLDM
RWR vs. GLDM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Dow Jones REIT ETF (RWR) 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.
| RWR | GLDM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.08 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 0.00 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.20 | 1.25 | -0.04 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.93 | 1.70 | +0.23 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.55 | 4.23 | +2.32 |
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 charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| RWR | GLDM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.16 | 1.24 | -0.08 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.22 | 1.04 | -0.82 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.24 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.31 | 1.02 | -0.71 |
Drawdowns
RWR vs. GLDM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum RWR drawdown since its inception was -74.92%, which is greater than GLDM's maximum drawdown of -21.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RWR and GLDM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| RWR | GLDM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -74.92% | -21.63% | -53.29% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -8.04% | -19.14% | +11.10% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -18.85% | -19.14% | +0.29% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -32.58% | -20.92% | -11.66% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -44.39% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.09% | -17.65% | +14.56% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -13.11% | -6.22% | -6.89% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.36% | 7.69% | -5.33% |
Volatility
RWR vs. GLDM - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for SPDR Dow Jones REIT ETF (RWR) is 4.09%, while SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) has a volatility of 5.47%. This indicates that RWR 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 charts...
Volatility by Period
| RWR | GLDM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.09% | 5.47% | -1.38% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 9.51% | 22.99% | -13.48% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 13.39% | 26.39% | -13.00% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 19.01% | 17.91% | +1.10% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 21.51% | 16.85% | +4.66% |
RWR vs. GLDM - Expense Ratio Comparison
RWR has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than GLDM's 0.10% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
RWR vs. GLDM - Dividend Comparison
RWR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.44%, while GLDM has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
RWR SPDR Dow Jones REIT ETF | 3.44% | 3.78% | 3.76% | 3.75% | 3.81% | 2.79% | 3.73% | 3.36% | 4.19% | 3.05% | 4.39% | 3.17% |
Frequently Asked Questions
RWR and GLDM have a correlation of 0.18, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
GLDM has higher volatility (5.47%) compared to RWR (4.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RWR dropped -74.92% vs GLDM's -21.63%.
On 5-year performance, GLDM leads with 18.49% vs 4.15% for RWR. On fees, GLDM is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, RWR has been the lower-risk option at 4.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, GLDM has performed better with a 18.49% return vs 4.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GLDM is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for RWR.
RWR has the higher dividend yield at 3.44%, compared with 0.00% for GLDM.
RWR is categorized as REIT, while GLDM is Gold. RWR tracks Dow Jones U.S. Select REIT Index, while GLDM tracks LBMA Gold Price PM. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for RWR and 0.10% for GLDM.
GLDM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.24 vs 1.16), 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.
Find the right allocation for RWR and GLDM
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer