GDXJ vs GLDM: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
GDXJ and GLDM are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. GDXJ is VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF, while GLDM is SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust. GLDM has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has GLDM ahead on AIQ Score, 57 versus 51.
| Metric | GDXJ | GLDM |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.52% | 0.1% |
| Holdings | 119 | 1 |
| Average volume | 4,812,705 | 4,381,914 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -1.5% | -2.9% |
| YTD return | -5.2% | -4.6% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +20.8% | +17.9% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 56% | 29.2% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -41.3% | -26.3% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -48.8% | -26.3% |
| Beta | 2.27 | 0.80 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.29 | -0.08 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.41 | -0.10 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 51/100 | 57/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 6/10 |
| Momentum | 32/100 | 39/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 41/100 | 56/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF vs SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust
GLDM leads
GLDM leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum.
Competitive: 3 of 3 evidence groups support GLDM, and its current signal state is conflicted.
VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF
SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GLDM over GDXJ, 57 versus 51 as of Oct 21, 2026. GLDM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum. GLDM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor GLDM today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. GLDM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF and SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
GDXJ vs GLDM: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | GDXJ | GLDM | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.52% | 0.1% | GLDM |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -48.8% | -26.3% | GLDM |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 56% | 29.2% | GLDM |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare GDXJ and GLDM against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Risk Resilience41 vs 56GLDM +15
- Momentum32 vs 39GLDM +7
- Quality72 vs 72Even
3 of 3 evidence groups favor GLDM. GLDM’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
New signals
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.50%)
GLDM's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GDXJ and GLDM both carry a full feed there.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | GDXJ | GLDM | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.52% | 0.1% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 119 | 1 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 4,812,705 | 4,381,914 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 56% | 29.2% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -41.3% | -26.3% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.29 | -0.08 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 2.27 | 0.80 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor GLDM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GLDM | 51 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | GLDM | Price vs 50-day -9.9% vs -4.3%; vs 200-day -9.6% vs -8.9% |
| Risk Resilience | GLDM | Risk Resilience 41 vs 56 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GDXJ and GLDM and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 6 points.
- 3 of 3 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on GLDM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20GLDM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GLDM +6
- 51 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- GLDM +6
- 49 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- GLDM +4
- 47 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- GDXJ +1
- 70 vs 69
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Sep 28 when GLDM moved ahead of GDXJ.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only GDXJ
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.95%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.83%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only GLDM
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.56%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.50%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
GLDM leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.63%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.38%, AIQ 0 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1GDXJ closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to GLDM's edge.
- 2GDXJ's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3GLDM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | GDXJ | GLDM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.5% | -1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -15.7% | -5.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 7.2% | -0.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -12% | -12% |
| Year to date | -5.2% | -4.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -1.5% | -2.9% |
Technicals
GLDM has the stronger structure| Metric | GDXJ | GLDM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.1 | 46.3 |
| ADX (14) | 18 | 16.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.9% | -4.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -9.6% | -8.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 43.8% | 20.9% |
Risk
GLDM is the more resilient| Metric | GDXJ | GLDM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.27 | 0.8 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.29 | -0.08 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.41 | -0.1 |
| Max drawdown | -41.3% | -26.3% |
| Current drawdown | -31% | -23.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 56% | 29.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.8% | -3.2% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
GLDM has the lower expense ratio, 0.1% a year against 0.52% for GDXJ.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
GDXJ has been more volatile over the past year, at 56% annualized against 29.2% for GLDM.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
GLDM fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -26.3% against -48.8% for GDXJ.
Compare GDXJ and GLDM with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.