PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
USCI vs. GLDM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

USCI vs. GLDM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in United States Commodity Index Fund (USCI) and SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, USCI achieves a 28.08% return, which is significantly higher than GLDM's 3.99% return.


USCI

1D
0.25%
1M
-0.40%
YTD
28.08%
6M
27.07%
1Y
41.40%
3Y*
23.10%
5Y*
19.62%
10Y*
8.84%

GLDM

1D
0.15%
1M
-2.66%
YTD
3.99%
6M
6.55%
1Y
32.55%
3Y*
31.91%
5Y*
18.99%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

USCI vs. GLDM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
USCI
United States Commodity Index Fund
28.08%17.63%17.24%-0.00%29.47%33.07%-11.47%-1.68%-13.12%
GLDM
SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust
3.99%64.20%27.08%13.04%-0.47%-4.01%25.10%18.10%1.84%

Correlation

The correlation between USCI and GLDM is 0.19, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.19

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.29

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.32

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 27, 2018

0.31

The correlation between USCI and GLDM shifts across timeframes, from 0.19 (1 year) to 0.32 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

USCI vs. GLDM — Risk / Return Rank

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

USCI
USCI Risk / Return Rank: 7676
Overall Rank
USCI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7575
Sharpe Ratio Rank
USCI Sortino Ratio Rank: 6868
Sortino Ratio Rank
USCI Omega Ratio Rank: 6868
Omega Ratio Rank
USCI Calmar Ratio Rank: 8686
Calmar Ratio Rank
USCI Martin Ratio Rank: 8484
Martin Ratio Rank

GLDM
GLDM Risk / Return Rank: 3434
Overall Rank
GLDM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3434
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GLDM Sortino Ratio Rank: 3131
Sortino Ratio Rank
GLDM Omega Ratio Rank: 3737
Omega Ratio Rank
GLDM Calmar Ratio Rank: 3838
Calmar Ratio Rank
GLDM Martin Ratio Rank: 3131
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

USCI vs. GLDM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for United States Commodity Index Fund (USCI) 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.


USCIGLDMDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

2.49

1.24

+1.25

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

3.17

1.64

+1.53

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.42

1.25

+0.17

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

4.93

1.88

+3.04

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

17.27

4.74

+12.53

USCI vs. GLDM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current USCI Sharpe Ratio is 2.49, which is higher than the GLDM Sharpe Ratio of 1.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of USCI 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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


USCIGLDMDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.49

1.24

+1.25

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.07

1.07

0.00

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.56

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.30

1.03

-0.72

Drawdowns

USCI vs. GLDM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum USCI drawdown since its inception was -66.41%, which is greater than GLDM's maximum drawdown of -21.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for USCI and GLDM.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


USCIGLDMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-66.41%

-21.63%

-44.78%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.73%

-19.14%

+10.41%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-12.01%

-19.14%

+7.13%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-18.84%

-20.92%

+2.08%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-45.82%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.20%

-16.85%

+13.65%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-29.52%

-6.21%

-23.31%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.49%

7.61%

-5.12%

Volatility

USCI vs. GLDM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for United States Commodity Index Fund (USCI) is 4.61%, while SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) has a volatility of 5.74%. This indicates that USCI 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


USCIGLDMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.61%

5.74%

-1.13%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.94%

22.98%

-9.04%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.74%

26.49%

-9.75%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.45%

17.92%

+0.53%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.85%

16.85%

-1.00%

USCI vs. GLDM - Expense Ratio Comparison

USCI has a 1.03% expense ratio, which is higher than GLDM's 0.10% expense ratio.


Dividends

USCI vs. GLDM - Dividend Comparison

Neither USCI nor GLDM has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


USCI and GLDM have a correlation of 0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

GLDM has higher volatility (5.74%) compared to USCI (4.61%). In terms of maximum drawdown, USCI dropped -66.41% vs GLDM's -21.63%.

On 5-year performance, USCI leads with 19.62% vs 18.99% for GLDM. On fees, GLDM is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, USCI has been the lower-risk option at 4.61%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, USCI has performed better with a 19.62% return vs 18.99%. 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 1.03% for USCI.

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

USCI is categorized as Commodities, while GLDM is Gold. USCI tracks SummerHaven Dynamic Commodity (TR), while GLDM tracks LBMA Gold Price PM. They also come from different issuers: Concierge Technologies and State Street. Their fees differ too: 1.03% for USCI and 0.10% for GLDM.

USCI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.49 vs 1.24), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for USCI 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