SGOL vs. GLDM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

SGOL (abrdn Physical Gold Shares ETF) and GLDM (SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust) are both exchange-traded funds - SGOL is a Precious Metals fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM ($/ozt), while GLDM is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, SGOL returned 18.40%/yr vs 18.49%/yr for GLDM. With a 1.00 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. SGOL charges 0.17%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for GLDM.

Performance

SGOL vs. GLDM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in abrdn Physical Gold Shares ETF (SGOL) and SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with SGOL having a 2.97% return and GLDM slightly higher at 3.00%.

SGOL

• 1D: -0.98%
• 1M: -1.67%
• YTD: 2.97%
• 6M: 5.51%
• 1Y: 32.27%
• 3Y*: 31.36%
• 5Y*: 18.40%
• 10Y*: 13.32%

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)

SGOL vs. GLDM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
SGOL abrdn Physical Gold Shares ETF	2.97%	63.99%	26.90%	12.99%	-0.51%	-3.94%	25.03%	18.21%	1.66%
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 SGOL and GLDM is 1.00 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.00
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	1.00
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.00
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 27, 2018	1.00

The correlation between SGOL and GLDM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 1.00 to 1.00 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

SGOL vs. GLDM — Risk / Return Rank

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

SGOL

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

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.

SGOL vs. GLDM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for abrdn Physical Gold Shares ETF (SGOL) 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.

	SGOL	GLDM	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.23	1.24	0.00
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.63	1.63	0.00
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.25	0.00
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.69	1.70	-0.01
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	4.20	4.23	-0.03
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

SGOL vs. GLDM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SGOL Sharpe Ratio is 1.23, which is comparable to the GLDM Sharpe Ratio of 1.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SGOL 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

	SGOL	GLDM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.23	1.24	0.00
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.03	1.04	0.00
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.84	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.55	1.02	-0.47

Drawdowns

SGOL vs. GLDM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SGOL drawdown since its inception was -45.51%, which is greater than GLDM's maximum drawdown of -21.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SGOL and GLDM.

Drawdown Indicators

	SGOL	GLDM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-45.51%	-21.63%	-23.88%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.14%	-19.14%	0.00%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.14%	-19.14%	0.00%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.92%	-20.92%	0.00%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-21.56%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-17.72%	-17.65%	-0.07%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.41%	-6.22%	-12.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.71%	7.69%	+0.02%

Volatility

SGOL vs. GLDM - Volatility Comparison

abrdn Physical Gold Shares ETF (SGOL) and SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) have volatilities of 5.46% and 5.47%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SGOL	GLDM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.46%	5.47%	-0.01%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.93%	22.99%	-0.06%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.33%	26.39%	-0.06%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.89%	17.91%	-0.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.91%	16.85%	-0.94%

SGOL vs. GLDM - Expense Ratio Comparison

SGOL has a 0.17% 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

SGOL vs. GLDM - Dividend Comparison

Neither SGOL nor GLDM has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SGOL and GLDM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 1.00, SGOL and GLDM move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, SGOL or GLDM?

GLDM has higher volatility (5.47%) compared to SGOL (5.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SGOL dropped -45.51% vs GLDM's -21.63%.

Which ETF is better, SGOL or GLDM?

On 5-year performance, GLDM leads with 18.49% vs 18.40% for SGOL. On fees, GLDM is cheaper at 0.10% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SGOL or GLDM?

Over the 5-year period, GLDM has performed better with a 18.49% return vs 18.40%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SGOL or GLDM?

GLDM is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.17% for SGOL.

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

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

What is the main difference between SGOL and GLDM?

SGOL is categorized as Precious Metals, while GLDM is Gold. SGOL tracks LBMA Gold Price PM ($/ozt), while GLDM tracks LBMA Gold Price PM. They also come from different issuers: abrdn and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.17% for SGOL and 0.10% for GLDM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GLDM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.24 vs 1.23), 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.