XNAS.L vs. GLDM

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

XNAS.L (Xtrackers NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF) and GLDM (SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust) are both exchange-traded funds - XNAS.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index, while GLDM is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, XNAS.L returned 25.23%/yr vs 17.89%/yr for GLDM. At a 0.06 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XNAS.L charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for GLDM.

Performance

XNAS.L vs. GLDM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Xtrackers NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (XNAS.L) 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, XNAS.L achieves a 16.34% return, which is significantly higher than GLDM's 0.30% return.

XNAS.L

• 1D: -0.36%
• 1M: 1.62%
• YTD: 16.34%
• 6M: 15.52%
• 1Y: 36.22%
• 3Y*: 27.22%
• 5Y*: 25.23%
• 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)

XNAS.L vs. GLDM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
XNAS.L Xtrackers NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF	16.34%	19.82%	26.59%	88.40%	-25.44%	-8.88%
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust	0.30%	64.20%	27.08%	13.04%	-0.47%	-2.36%

Correlation

The correlation between XNAS.L and GLDM is 0.17, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.17
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.10
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.05
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 21, 2021	0.06

The correlation between XNAS.L and GLDM shifts across timeframes, from 0.05 (5 years) to 0.17 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

XNAS.L vs. GLDM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XNAS.L	GLDM
Technology	53.7%	-
Communication Services	15.8%	-
Consumer Cyclical	12.2%	-
Consumer Defensive	7.7%	-
Healthcare	4.2%	-
Industrials	3.1%	-
Utilities	1.4%	-
Basic Materials	1.1%	100.0%
Energy	0.6%	-
Financial Services	0.2%	-
Real Estate	0.1%	-

Return for Risk

XNAS.L vs. GLDM — Risk / Return Rank

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

XNAS.L

XNAS.L Risk / Return Rank: 74
XNAS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
XNAS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
XNAS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 74
XNAS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
XNAS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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.

XNAS.L vs. GLDM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (XNAS.L) 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.

	XNAS.L	GLDM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.26	1.15	+1.10
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.13	1.54	+1.59
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.23	+0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.30	1.53	+1.77
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.81	3.85	+7.96
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

XNAS.L vs. GLDM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XNAS.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.26, which is higher than the GLDM Sharpe Ratio of 1.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XNAS.L 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

	XNAS.L	GLDM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.26	1.15	+1.10
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.11	1.00	+0.11
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.65	0.99	-0.34

Drawdowns

XNAS.L vs. GLDM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XNAS.L drawdown since its inception was -34.26%, which is greater than GLDM's maximum drawdown of -21.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XNAS.L and GLDM.

Drawdown Indicators

	XNAS.L	GLDM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-34.26%	-21.63%	-12.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.91%	-20.00%	+9.09%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.92%	-20.00%	-2.92%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-27.52%	-20.92%	-6.60%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.52%	-19.80%	+16.28%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.37%	-6.24%	-4.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.06%	7.96%	-4.90%

Volatility

XNAS.L vs. GLDM - Volatility Comparison

Xtrackers NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (XNAS.L) and SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) have volatilities of 5.49% and 5.65%, 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

	XNAS.L	GLDM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.49%	5.65%	-0.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.01%	23.31%	-11.30%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.02%	26.65%	-10.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.70%	17.98%	+4.72%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.23%	16.89%	+8.34%

XNAS.L vs. GLDM - Expense Ratio Comparison

XNAS.L has a 0.20% 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

XNAS.L vs. GLDM - Dividend Comparison

Neither XNAS.L nor GLDM has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XNAS.L and GLDM in my portfolio?

XNAS.L and GLDM have a correlation of 0.17, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, XNAS.L or GLDM?

On fees, GLDM is cheaper at 0.10% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, XNAS.L or GLDM?

GLDM is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for XNAS.L.

What is the main difference between XNAS.L and GLDM?

XNAS.L is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while GLDM is Gold. XNAS.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index, while GLDM tracks LBMA Gold Price PM. They also come from different issuers: Xtrackers and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for XNAS.L and 0.10% for GLDM.