Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
EEM vs GLDM: how they differ
EEM is an equity index fund and GLDM a commodity fund, and over the year EEM returned more, +32.3% against +19.4%.
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF and SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust.
| EEM iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF | GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | iShares |
| What it is | Emerging markets | Gold MiniShares |
| Total return, 1 year | +32.3% | +19.4% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +14.8 pts | +1.9 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.72% | not published |
| Holdings | 1245 | not filed |
EEM in plain words
EEM is an index equity fund tracking the Emerging markets. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +32.3% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.72% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1245 positions, with the top ten at 38.9%. It sat 4.7% below its high of Jun 22, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
GLDM in plain words
GLDM is a commodity fund tracking the Gold MiniShares. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +19.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. It sat 19.4% below its high of Jan 29, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, EEM or GLDM?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, EEM returned +32.3% and GLDM returned +19.4%, so EEM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Other comparisons
Where to next
Where these figures came from
ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, EEM against GLDM, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/EEM-GLDM Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources