GLDM vs SLV: Which ETF Is Better in 2026?
A metric-by-metric comparison of SPDR Gold MiniShares (GLDM) and iShares Silver Trust (SLV) — both Commodities funds — using ETFValuer's daily-updated rankings.
Educational content — not financial advice. Data as of July 25, 2026. ~5 minute read.
The Verdict
GLDM and SLV compete directly — both are Commodities funds chasing the same job in a portfolio. That makes this a genuine either/or: the index each tracks, what it costs, and how it has handled drawdowns are what separate them, not the broad exposure they give you.
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — GLDM scores higher: 62.8 (Grade C) versus 62.3 for SLV. That doesn't make SLV a bad fund; it means GLDM currently edges it out on this specific mix of factors. Read the metric-by-metric breakdown below before deciding which matters more for your own portfolio.
Head-to-Head: Every Metric
| GLDM | SLV | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Commodities | Commodities |
| Expense ratio | 0.10% | 0.50% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $27.3B | $28.2B |
| Dividend yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 1-year return | +19.45% | +47.35% |
| 3-year return | +105.72% | +131.78% |
| Volatility | 27.88% | 61.34% |
| Max drawdown | -26.27% | -52.28% |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.52 | 0.69 |
| ETFValuer score | 62.8 | 62.3 |
| Grade | C | C |
| Overall rank | #199 | #206 |
Bold marks the better value in each row. "Better" is directional only (e.g. lower cost, higher return) — it isn't a recommendation by itself. See the full methodology.
Cost
GLDM is the cheaper fund, charging 0.10% a year versus 0.50% for SLV — a gap of 0.40 percentage points (about $40.00/year on a $10,000 position) that compounds meaningfully over a multi-decade holding period. See the ETF Fee Calculator for the exact dollar impact at your investment size and horizon.
What SLV's Fees Cost You
SLV charges an expense ratio of 0.50% a year, deducted automatically from the fund's value. Small percentages compound into real money — adjust the figures below to see the impact on your own numbers.
Assumes a constant gross return and no additional contributions — a simplification, but it isolates exactly what the expense ratio costs. Try the full fee calculator to model contributions and compare any two funds.
Performance & Risk
Over the trailing 3 years, SLV returned +131.78% versus +105.72% for GLDM — a gap of about 26.1 percentage points. On risk, GLDM has held up better historically, with a shallower max drawdown (-26.27% vs. -52.28%). SLV currently has the better risk-adjusted return (Sharpe ratio of 0.69 vs. 0.52), meaning it delivered more return per unit of volatility taken on.
How Closely Do They Track Each Other?
Over the last 3.0 years of daily returns (752 shared trading days), GLDM and SLV show a strong correlation of 0.782 — clearly related, with room to diverge. There is some genuine differentiation here, but not enough to call these complementary holdings. Pairing them mostly concentrates risk rather than spreading it.
| Measure | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Daily return correlation | 0.782 | Strong — clearly related, with room to diverge |
| R-squared | 61.2% | 61.2% of GLDM's daily moves are explained by SLV's |
| Tracking error (annualised) | 29.07% | Typical yearly spread between the two funds' returns |
| Annualised return over 3.0y | GLDM +27.42% · SLV +32.64% | SLV ahead by 5.22 points a year |
Correlation alone understates how far these can drift. Across every rolling 12-month window in the period, GLDM finished as much as +36.9 points ahead of SLV at the best extreme and -188.5 points at the worst — a 225.5-point spread between the best and worst year of relative performance. Two funds can correlate tightly day to day and still deliver very different outcomes over any single year you happen to hold them.
Calculated from daily total returns over the trailing 3-year window, recomputed every day this site refreshes. Correlation of 1.00 means the two funds moved in lockstep; 0.00 means their daily moves were unrelated.
Which One Should You Pick?
Lean GLDM if…
- You want the lower running cost — 0.10% vs 0.50%, about $40 a year less on a $10,000 position
- It has been the calmer ride (27.9% volatility vs 61.3%) with a shallower worst-case fall (-26.3% vs -52.3%)
Lean SLV if…
- You care about return per unit of risk — its Sharpe ratio of 0.69 beats 0.52
- You weight recent results heavily — it returned 131.8% over 3 years against 105.7%
Whichever you pick, holding both at full weight is usually the wrong answer — see the overlap and correlation sections above.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is GLDM or SLV better?
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — GLDM scores higher: 62.8 (Grade C) versus 62.3 for SLV. That doesn't make SLV a bad fund; it means GLDM currently edges it out on this specific mix of factors. Read the metric-by-metric breakdown below before deciding which matters more for your own portfolio.
Which has the lower expense ratio, GLDM or SLV?
GLDM currently has the lower expense ratio (0.10% vs. 0.50%).
Can I hold both GLDM and SLV?
Yes, and it may be worth doing. GLDM and SLV correlate at only 0.78 over the past 3.0 years, so they behave differently enough that holding both is a genuine diversification decision rather than a redundant one. Size each to the role you want it to play.
Go deeper on either fund
Full daily-updated metrics, holdings context, and category peers.