GLD vs GLDM ETF Comparison
Compare GLD and GLDM across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between GLD and GLDM?
GLD is SPDR Gold Shares, while GLDM is SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust. GLD is tied to Commodities; GLDM is tied to Commodities. GLDM has the lower expense ratio in the current fund profile. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has GLDM ahead on AIQ Score, 62 versus 60.
| Metric | GLD | GLDM | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.4% | 0.1% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $151.3B | $32.4B | Fund |
| Holdings | 0 | 0 | Fund |
| Average volume | 6,115,028 | 3,154,222 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Commodities | Commodities | Fund |
| Annualized volatility | 29.3% | 29.1% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -26.4% | -26.3% | Risk |
| Beta | 0.73 | 0.73 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.78 | 0.79 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | 0.94 | 0.96 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 60/100 | 62/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 9/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 52/100 | 58/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 49/100 | 49/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
SPDR Gold Shares vs SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust
GLDM leads
GLDM leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from GLD.
Fragile: 0 of 3 evidence groups support GLDM, and the lead recently changed hands.
SPDR Gold Shares
SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GLDM over GLD, 62 versus 60 as of Sep 5, 2026. GLDM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum. GLDM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 0 of 3 covered evidence groups favor GLDM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. GLDM lead: Reversed — GLD led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GLDM now leads by 2.
Compare SPDR Gold Shares and SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Compare GLD 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.
- Momentum25%52 vs 58GLDM +6
- Quality30%72 vs 72Even
- Risk Resilience15%49 vs 49Even
0 of 3 evidence groups favor GLDM. GLDM’s edge is concentrated in momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No new signals fired.
GLDM's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GLD and GLDM both carry a full feed there.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
GLDMGLDM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
GLDMGLDM on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
EvenDownside measures are level or not covered.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
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 | GLD | GLDM | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.4% | 0.1% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $151.3B | $32.4B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 0 | 0 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 6,115,028 | 3,154,222 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 29.3% | 29.1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -26.4% | -26.3% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.78 | 0.79 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.73 | 0.73 | 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.
Weighted holdings overlap is not available for this pair. Sector exposure above is a related but different measure — it says how much of each fund sits in the same parts of the market, not how much of the same securities they hold.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, GLD or GLDM?
Use holdings count, top-10 concentration and sector exposure together; the current dataset does not show a decisive holdings-count edge.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
GLDM has the lower reported expense ratio in the current fund profile.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
The current dataset does not show a higher-yield winner.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
GLD has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
GLDM has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
GLDM currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 62 to 60.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
0 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 | Even | 60 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 4.8% vs 4.8%; vs 200-day -1.2% vs -1.1% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 49 vs 49 |
| 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 GLD and GLDM and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 · Apr 22 – Sep 3GLDM lead: Reversed — GLD led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GLDM now leads by 2.
- Today
- GLDM +2
- 60 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- GLD +1
- 63 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- GLD +4
- 73 vs 69
- 90 sessions ago
- GLDM +1
- 48 vs 49
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jul 6 when GLD moved ahead of GLDM.
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.
0 bullish / 2 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.99%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 2 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.89%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.84%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.89%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1GLD closes the Momentum gap — currently 6 points behind, the largest single contributor to GLDM's edge.
- 2GLD's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3GLDM starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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.
Technicals
Split| Metric | GLD | GLDM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55 | 55.1 |
| ADX (14) | 23.6 | 23.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.8% | 4.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.2% | -1.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.9% | 27.9% |
Risk
Split| Metric | GLD | GLDM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.73 | 0.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.78 | 0.79 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.94 | 0.96 |
| Max drawdown | -26.4% | -26.3% |
| Current drawdown | -17.3% | -17.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 29.3% | 29.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GLD or GLDM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GLDM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 62 against GLD's 60. The edge comes from momentum. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is GLD or GLDM the better buy right now?
GLDM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 0 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor GLDM over GLD?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. GLDM leads Momentum by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, GLD or GLDM?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, GLD or GLDM?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, GLD or GLDM?
GLDM on the Momentum factor, by 6 points. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, GLD or GLDM?
The two are close on downside measures. Downside measures are level or not covered. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is GLD more profitable than GLDM?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is GLDM's lead over GLD getting stronger or weaker?
GLDM lead: Reversed — GLD led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GLDM now leads by 2. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-07-06, when GLD moved ahead of GLDM.
What would change the GLD vs GLDM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GLD closes the Momentum gap — currently 6 points behind, the largest single contributor to GLDM's edge; GLD's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; GLDM starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about GLD and GLDM?
GLD: 0 bullish / 2 bearish. GLDM: 0 bullish / 2 bearish. The most decision-relevant rule on GLD is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On GLDM it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare GLD and GLDM with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.