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

Performance

XCNY vs. GLDM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR S&P Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (XCNY) 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, XCNY achieves a 17.77% return, which is significantly higher than GLDM's -7.26% return.


XCNY

1D
-2.01%
1M
-0.00%
6M
13.80%
YTD
17.77%
1Y
29.37%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

GLDM

1D
-2.61%
1M
-4.98%
6M
-12.90%
YTD
-7.26%
1Y
19.09%
3Y*
26.87%
5Y*
16.85%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XCNY vs. GLDM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024
XCNY
SPDR S&P Emerging Markets ex-China ETF
17.77%20.42%-3.63%
GLDM
SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust
-7.26%64.20%5.20%

Correlation

The correlation between XCNY and GLDM is 0.38, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.38

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 5, 2024

0.31

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

XCNY vs. GLDM — Risk / Return Rank

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

XCNY
XCNY Risk / Return Rank: 6161
Overall Rank
XCNY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6060
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XCNY Sortino Ratio Rank: 5858
Sortino Ratio Rank
XCNY Omega Ratio Rank: 6262
Omega Ratio Rank
XCNY Calmar Ratio Rank: 6363
Calmar Ratio Rank
XCNY Martin Ratio Rank: 6464
Martin Ratio Rank

GLDM
GLDM Risk / Return Rank: 2323
Overall Rank
GLDM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2424
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GLDM Sortino Ratio Rank: 2222
Sortino Ratio Rank
GLDM Omega Ratio Rank: 2626
Omega Ratio Rank
GLDM Calmar Ratio Rank: 2020
Calmar Ratio Rank
GLDM Martin Ratio Rank: 2020
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.

XCNY vs. GLDM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR S&P Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (XCNY) 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.


XCNYGLDMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.91

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.17

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.30

1.15

+0.15

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.49

0.73

+1.75

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.05

1.80

+7.25

XCNY vs. GLDM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XCNY Sharpe Ratio is 1.60, which is higher than the GLDM Sharpe Ratio of 0.69. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XCNY 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...

Drawdowns

XCNY vs. GLDM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XCNY drawdown since its inception was -19.70%, smaller than the maximum GLDM drawdown of -26.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XCNY and GLDM.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


XCNYGLDMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-19.70%

-26.11%

+6.41%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.86%

-26.11%

+14.25%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-26.11%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-26.11%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-4.60%

-25.85%

+21.25%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.08%

-6.43%

+2.35%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.25%

10.63%

-7.38%

Volatility

XCNY vs. GLDM - Volatility Comparison

SPDR S&P Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (XCNY) and SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) have volatilities of 7.75% and 7.60%, 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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


XCNYGLDMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.75%

7.60%

+0.15%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

16.81%

24.04%

-7.23%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.48%

27.76%

-9.28%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.47%

18.30%

+0.17%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.47%

17.07%

+1.40%

XCNY vs. GLDM - Expense Ratio Comparison

XCNY has a 0.15% 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

XCNY vs. GLDM - Dividend Comparison

XCNY's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.27%, while GLDM has not paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM20252024
GLDM
SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust
0.00%0.00%0.00%
XCNY
SPDR S&P Emerging Markets ex-China ETF
2.27%2.68%1.07%

Frequently Asked Questions


XCNY and GLDM have a correlation of 0.38, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

XCNY has higher volatility (7.75%) compared to GLDM (7.60%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XCNY dropped -19.70% vs GLDM's -26.11%.

On 1-year performance, XCNY leads with 29.37% vs 19.09% for GLDM. On fees, GLDM is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, GLDM has been the lower-risk option at 7.60%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, XCNY has performed better with a 29.37% return vs 19.09%. 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 0.15% for XCNY.

XCNY has the higher dividend yield at 2.27%, compared with 0.00% for GLDM.

XCNY is categorized as Emerging Markets Diversified, while GLDM is Gold. XCNY tracks S&P Emerging ex-China BMI, while GLDM tracks LBMA Gold Price PM. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for XCNY and 0.10% for GLDM.

XCNY currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.60 vs 0.69), 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 XCNY 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