GLDM vs PDBA: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
GLDM and PDBA are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. GLDM is SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust, while PDBA is Invesco Agriculture Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF. GLDM has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has GLDM ahead on AIQ Score, 57 versus 53.
| Metric | GLDM | PDBA |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.1% | 0.75% |
| Holdings | 1 | 3 |
| Average volume | 4,381,914 | 232,293 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -2.9% | +5.9% |
| YTD return | -4.6% | +10.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 29.2% | 11.5% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -26.3% | -8.6% |
| Beta | 0.80 | 0.04 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.08 | 0.27 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.10 | 0.40 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 57/100 | 53/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 5/10 |
| Momentum | 39/100 | 49/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 56/100 | 66/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust vs Invesco Agriculture Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF
GLDM leads
GLDM leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Quality.
Fragile: 1 of 3 evidence groups support GLDM, and its current signal state is conflicted.
SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust
Invesco Agriculture Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GLDM over PDBA, 57 versus 53 as of Oct 21, 2026. GLDM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while PDBA holds the stronger momentum profile. GLDM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor GLDM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. GLDM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust and Invesco Agriculture Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
GLDM vs PDBA: 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 | GLDM | PDBA | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.1% | 0.75% | GLDM |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -26.3% | -8.6% | PDBA |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 29.2% | 11.5% | PDBA |
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 GLDM and PDBA 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.
- Quality72 vs 51GLDM +21
- Momentum39 vs 49PDBA +10
- Risk Resilience56 vs 66PDBA +10
1 of 3 evidence groups favor GLDM. GLDM’s edge is concentrated in quality; PDBA keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
New signals
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.50%)
Largest factor move: Momentum +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
GLDM's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GLDM and PDBA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GLDM (SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
PDBA (Invesco Agriculture Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience, technicals.
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 | GLDM | PDBA | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.1% | 0.75% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 1 | 3 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 4,381,914 | 232,293 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 29.2% | 11.5% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -26.3% | -8.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.08 | 0.27 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.80 | 0.04 | 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
1 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 | 57 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | PDBA | Price vs 50-day -4.3% vs -1.4%; vs 200-day -8.9% vs 3.3% |
| Risk Resilience | PDBA | Risk Resilience 56 vs 66 |
| 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 GLDM and PDBA 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GLDM +4
- 57 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- GLDM +4
- 55 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- GLDM +3
- 51 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- GLDM +10
- 69 vs 59
The lead changed hands 10 times in this window, most recently on Oct 13 when GLDM moved ahead of PDBA.
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 / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only GLDM
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.56%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only PDBA
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.52%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: ATR Contraction - Coiling.
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.
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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.29%, 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.
- 1PDBA closes the Quality gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to GLDM's edge.
- 2PDBA'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
PDBA leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | GLDM | PDBA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.1% | -0.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.6% | -1.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.3% | -0.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -12% | 3.9% |
| Year to date | -4.6% | 10.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -2.9% | 5.9% |
Technicals
PDBA has the stronger structure| Metric | GLDM | PDBA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46.3 | 51.5 |
| ADX (14) | 16.5 | 14.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.3% | -1.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -8.9% | 3.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.9% | 8.9% |
Risk
PDBA is the more resilient| Metric | GLDM | PDBA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.8 | 0.04 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.08 | 0.27 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.1 | 0.4 |
| Max drawdown | -26.3% | -8.6% |
| Current drawdown | -23.7% | -4.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 29.2% | 11.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.2% | -1.2% |
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 0.75% for PDBA.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
GLDM has been more volatile over the past year, at 29.2% annualized against 11.5% for PDBA.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
PDBA fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -8.6% against -26.3% for GLDM.
Compare GLDM and PDBA 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.