TMFC vs. GLDM

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

TMFC (Motley Fool 100 Index ETF) and GLDM (SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust) are both exchange-traded funds - TMFC is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Motley Fool 100 Index, while GLDM is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, TMFC returned 15.26%/yr vs 17.89%/yr for GLDM. At a 0.07 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. TMFC charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for GLDM.

Performance

TMFC vs. GLDM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Motley Fool 100 Index ETF (TMFC) 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, TMFC achieves a 5.68% return, which is significantly higher than GLDM's 0.30% return.

TMFC

• 1D: 0.28%
• 1M: -1.58%
• YTD: 5.68%
• 6M: 5.24%
• 1Y: 22.16%
• 3Y*: 25.12%
• 5Y*: 15.26%
• 10Y*: —

GLDM

• 1D: 0.25%
• 1M: -8.41%
• YTD: 0.30%
• 6M: 3.19%
• 1Y: 30.55%
• 3Y*: 30.08%
• 5Y*: 17.89%
• 10Y*: —

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

TMFC vs. GLDM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
TMFC Motley Fool 100 Index ETF	5.68%	19.55%	35.17%	47.04%	-30.86%	25.30%	42.00%	34.70%	-7.24%
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	0.30%	64.20%	27.08%	13.04%	-0.47%	-4.01%	25.10%	18.10%	1.84%

Correlation

The correlation between TMFC 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	0.10
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.08
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 27, 2018	0.07

The correlation between TMFC and GLDM shifts across timeframes, from 0.07 (all time) to 0.18 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

TMFC vs. GLDM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TMFC	GLDM
Technology	41.4%	-
Communication Services	17.4%	-
Financial Services	12.9%	-
Consumer Cyclical	11.4%	-
Healthcare	4.8%	-
Consumer Defensive	4.3%	-
Industrials	4.0%	-
Energy	1.9%	-
Real Estate	0.9%	-
Basic Materials	0.6%	100.0%
Utilities	0.5%	-

Return for Risk

TMFC vs. GLDM — Risk / Return Rank

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

TMFC

TMFC Risk / Return Rank: 47
TMFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
TMFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 50
TMFC Omega Ratio Rank: 51
TMFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 39
TMFC Martin Ratio Rank: 43

GLDM

GLDM Risk / Return Rank: 34
GLDM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
GLDM Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
GLDM Omega Ratio Rank: 39
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.

TMFC vs. GLDM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Motley Fool 100 Index ETF (TMFC) 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.

	TMFC	GLDM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.61	1.15	+0.46
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.21	1.54	+0.67
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.23	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.76	1.53	+0.23
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.53	3.85	+2.68
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

TMFC vs. GLDM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TMFC Sharpe Ratio is 1.61, which is higher than the GLDM Sharpe Ratio of 1.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TMFC 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

	TMFC	GLDM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.61	1.15	+0.46
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.75	1.00	-0.25
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.81	0.99	-0.18

Drawdowns

TMFC vs. GLDM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TMFC drawdown since its inception was -33.06%, which is greater than GLDM's maximum drawdown of -21.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TMFC and GLDM.

Drawdown Indicators

	TMFC	GLDM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.06%	-21.63%	-11.43%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.64%	-20.00%	+7.36%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.06%	-20.00%	-0.06%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-33.06%	-20.92%	-12.14%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.62%	-19.80%	+16.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.77%	-6.24%	-0.53%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.40%	7.96%	-4.56%

Volatility

TMFC vs. GLDM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Motley Fool 100 Index ETF (TMFC) is 4.14%, while SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) has a volatility of 5.65%. This indicates that TMFC 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.

Volatility by Period

	TMFC	GLDM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.14%	5.65%	-1.51%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.56%	23.31%	-12.75%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.82%	26.65%	-12.83%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.41%	17.98%	+2.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.00%	16.89%	+5.11%

TMFC vs. GLDM - Expense Ratio Comparison

TMFC has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than GLDM's 0.10% expense ratio.

Dividends

TMFC vs. GLDM - Dividend Comparison

TMFC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.14%, while GLDM has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
TMFC Motley Fool 100 Index ETF	0.14%	0.14%	0.40%	0.26%	0.27%	0.23%	0.42%	0.50%	0.61%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TMFC and GLDM in my portfolio?

TMFC 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.

Which is riskier, TMFC or GLDM?

GLDM has higher volatility (5.65%) compared to TMFC (4.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TMFC dropped -33.06% vs GLDM's -21.63%.

Which ETF is better, TMFC or GLDM?

On 5-year performance, GLDM leads with 17.89% vs 15.26% for TMFC. On fees, GLDM is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, TMFC has been the lower-risk option at 4.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TMFC or GLDM?

Over the 5-year period, GLDM has performed better with a 17.89% return vs 15.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TMFC or GLDM?

GLDM is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for TMFC.

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

TMFC has the higher dividend yield at 0.14%, compared with 0.00% for GLDM.

What is the main difference between TMFC and GLDM?

TMFC is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while GLDM is Gold. TMFC tracks Motley Fool 100 Index, while GLDM tracks LBMA Gold Price PM. They also come from different issuers: Motley Fool and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for TMFC and 0.10% for GLDM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TMFC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.61 vs 1.15), 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.