Jump to any asset
849 assets, updated daily
SPDR Gold Shares vs SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust
VS
Comparative Analysis
GLDM wins this head-to-head comparison due to its slightly stronger technical positioning and significantly lower expense ratio, despite both ETFs exhibiting similar year-to-date returns and facing similar macroeconomic headwinds. GLDM's price is currently trading closer to its 52-week low than GLD, indicating more room for potential upside based on historical price action. While both ETFs are experiencing oversold conditions according to their RSI and Stochastic indicators, GLDM's technicals suggest a marginally less negative momentum. The lower cost structure of GLDM also provides a distinct advantage for long-term investors seeking exposure to gold. Therefore, GLDM presents a more compelling choice for investors prioritizing cost efficiency and a slightly more favorable technical setup.
Key Differentiator
The most significant differentiator between GLD and GLDM is their expense ratio and associated cost to investors. GLDM, with an expense ratio of 0.001 (costing $10 per $10,000 invested), is substantially cheaper than GLD, which has an expense ratio of 0.004 (costing $40 per $10,000 invested). This cost advantage, combined with GLDM's slightly better year-to-date and 1-year trailing returns and its position closer to its 52-week low, makes it the more attractive option for cost-conscious investors seeking gold exposure.
Joint Outlook
The outlook for both GLD and GLDM is cautiously optimistic, contingent on shifts in monetary policy and inflation trends. If real interest rates begin to decline and inflation remains persistent, gold prices could see a significant upward revaluation, benefiting both ETFs. GLDM is better positioned to capture this upside due to its lower cost structure. Conversely, a sustained period of high real rates and disinflation would likely lead to further price declines, with both ETFs potentially testing their 52-week lows. The current technical setup suggests a potential short-term bounce is possible, but the longer-term trend remains challenged by macroeconomic conditions.
Price Analysis Comparison
Asset Metrics
| Metric | GLD | GLDM |
|---|---|---|
| 52 Week Range | $333.81 - $509.70 | $71.81 - $109.74 |
| Prev. Close | $392.84 | $84.73 |
| Market Cap | 112.77B | N/A |
| 24h Volume | 68.58K | 52.68K |
Instead, their 'valuation' is assessed through price momentum and proximity to their 52-week ranges. GLDM is currently trading at $84.865, which is closer to its 52-week low of $71.810 than GLD is to its low of $333.810. GLD is trading at $393.46, closer to its 52-week high of $509.70. This suggests GLDM has more potential upside relative to its recent trading history, while GLD appears to be in a more established downtrend from its recent highs. Both ETFs are currently trading below their 200-day moving averages, indicating broader bearish trends.
Market Performance
| Metric | GLD | GLDM |
|---|---|---|
| Volatility (30D) | 33.01% | 32.99% |
| 24h Range | $391.86 - $394.31 | $84.53 - $85.05 |
| Market Strength (RSI) | 28.4 | 27.6 |
| Trend (SMA 50) | Bullish | Bullish |
Both assets exhibit similar volatility levels (~33%). Market momentum is currently Bullish for both. RSI levels indicate oversold conditions, potentially signaling a reversal.
Technical Indicators
| Indicator | GLD | GLDM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 28.35 | 27.64 |
| 50-Day MA | $391.51 | $84.49 |
| 200-Day MA | $416.00 | $89.65 |
Both GLD and GLDM are exhibiting technically oversold conditions, with GLDM showing a slightly lower RSI of 27.64 compared to GLD's 28.35. Similarly, GLDM's Stochastic is at 7.03, marginally lower than GLD's 5.06, indicating a similar degree of oversold momentum. Both ETFs are trading below their 50-day and 200-day moving averages, confirming a bearish trend. GLD's 50-day SMA is $391.51 and its 200-day SMA is $415.99, while GLDM's 50-day SMA is $84.49 and its 200-day SMA is $89.65. The MACD for GLD is slightly positive at 0.59, whereas GLDM's MACD is negative at -0.03, suggesting GLD has marginally less negative momentum, but both are weak.
AI Analyst Sentiment
Technical rating: based on current price action versus moving averages and momentum. This measures short-term chart trend, not analyst opinion or company fundamentals.
GLD
Technical Score: 25/100
GLDM
Technical Score: 75/100
Why the ratings differ: GLD currently scores poorly on technical momentum (price sitting below key moving averages), while the analyst view below reflects forward-looking estimates of the business. A stock can be technically weak and still carry bullish analyst targets: the two measure different things over different horizons.
Sentiment for both GLD and GLDM is currently bearish, as indicated by their oversold technical readings (RSI below 30) and their positions below key moving averages. There are no analyst ratings or target prices available for these commodity ETFs, so sentiment must be inferred from price action and technical indicators. The low RSI and Stochastic levels suggest that the market may be anticipating a potential bounce, but the sustained trend below the 200-day SMA indicates prevailing negative sentiment.Risk Stratification
| Metric | GLD | GLDM |
|---|---|---|
| Sharpe Ratio | 1.05 | 1.10 |
The primary risk for both GLD and GLDM is a continued strengthening of the US Dollar (DXY) and rising real interest rates, which typically put downward pressure on gold prices. Geopolitical events could act as a catalyst for safe-haven demand, potentially driving prices higher, but this is unpredictable. A significant risk for GLD is its higher expense ratio ($40 per $10,000 invested) compared to GLDM ($10 per $10,000 invested), which erodes returns over time. Also, GLD is trading closer to its 52-week high, suggesting less room for upside appreciation compared to GLDM, which is trading closer to its 52-week low.
Comparative ProTips
- Prioritize GLDM over GLD for long-term gold exposure due to its substantially lower expense ratio, which directly enhances net returns.
- Monitor real interest rates and the US Dollar Index (DXY) closely, as these are key inverse indicators for gold ETF performance.
- Given the current oversold technical conditions for both ETFs, consider dollar-cost averaging into GLDM on any further price weakness.
Monte Carlo Projection (10yr)
Actionable Trade Plans
Compare entry, exit, and risk management levels for both assets
Select Your Trade Bias
Risk Tolerance
Conservative
3%
Aggressive
Portfolio Value
$
✎
Position Size: $200 - $300 per asset
GLD
Current: $393.46
ENTRY ZONES
Conservative
$373.79
Aggressive
$393.46
RISK MANAGEMENT
STOP LOSS
$362.57
MAX LOSS
-3%
Volatility-Adjusted Stop Loss
Calculated based on volatility and technical support levels.
Profit Targets (Based on Conservative)
+5%
$392.48
+10%
$411.17
+15%
$429.86
GLDM
Current: $84.87
ENTRY ZONES
Conservative
$80.62
Aggressive
$84.87
RISK MANAGEMENT
STOP LOSS
$78.20
MAX LOSS
-3%
Volatility-Adjusted Stop Loss
Calculated based on volatility and technical support levels.
Profit Targets (Based on Conservative)
+5%
$84.65
+10%
$88.68
+15%
$92.72
Calculate Your Trade
Disclaimer
This comparison involves assets with varying risk profiles. The content is for educational purposes only. Identifying the stronger asset is based on relative strength (RS) and technical convergence. Past correlation does not guarantee future lockstep movement. Trading involves risk of loss. Note: The AI favored GLDM based on technical setup. This is valid for the specified timeframe only.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is a better buy, GLD or GLDM?+
GLDM is the preferred buy due to its significantly lower expense ratio ($10 vs $40 per $10,000 invested) and its price being closer to its 52-week low, suggesting more potential upside. Both ETFs show similar year-to-date returns and are technically oversold.
What are the key risks for GLD vs GLDM?+
The main risks for both ETFs include rising real interest rates and a strengthening US Dollar, which can depress gold prices. GLD carries an additional risk due to its higher expense ratio, which negatively impacts long-term returns compared to GLDM.
How do GLD and GLDM compare on cost?+
GLDM is considerably cheaper, with an expense ratio of 0.001, costing $10 per $10,000 invested annually. GLD has a higher expense ratio of 0.004, costing $40 per $10,000 invested annually.
What are the technical differences between GLD and GLDM?+
Both ETFs are technically oversold with low RSI and Stochastic readings. GLDM shows a slightly lower RSI and Stochastic, indicating marginally less negative momentum. Both are trading below their 50-day and 200-day moving averages.
How do their trailing returns compare?+
GLDM has slightly outperformed GLD in year-to-date (5.845% vs 5.638%) and 1-year (32.928% vs 32.538%) trailing returns. Over longer periods like 3, 5, and 10 years, GLD shows stronger returns, but GLDM's lower expense ratio makes its net returns more competitive.
What is the net asset size of GLD and GLDM?+
GLD has significantly larger net assets, with $152.86 billion, compared to GLDM's $32.79 billion. This indicates GLD is a more established and liquid ETF.
What are the primary drivers for gold ETFs like GLD and GLDM?+
The primary drivers are macroeconomic factors such as real interest rates, inflation expectations, US Dollar strength, and central bank gold buying. Geopolitical uncertainty can also increase demand for gold as a safe-haven asset.