Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
EMB vs GLD: how they differ
EMB is a bond index fund and GLD a commodity fund, and over the year GLD returned more, +19.1% against +2.8%.
iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF and SPDR Gold Shares.
| EMB iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF | GLD SPDR Gold Shares | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | State Street |
| What it is | J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond | Gold |
| Total return, 1 year | +2.8% | +19.1% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −14.7 pts | +1.6 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.39% | 0.40% |
| Holdings | 681 | not filed |
EMB in plain words
EMB is a bond fund tracking the J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +2.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.39% a year.
GLD in plain words
GLD is a commodity fund tracking the Gold. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +19.1% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.40% a year. It sat 19.6% below its high of Jan 29, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, EMB or GLD?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, EMB returned +2.8% and GLD returned +19.1%, so GLD returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, EMB or GLD?
- EMB charges 0.39% a year and GLD charges 0.40%, so EMB is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
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, EMB against GLD, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/EMB-GLD Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources