Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
EWT vs GLDM: how they differ
EWT is an equity index fund and GLDM a commodity fund, and over the year EWT returned more, +84.9% against +19.4%.
iShares MSCI Taiwan ETF and SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust.
| EWT iShares MSCI Taiwan ETF | GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | iShares |
| What it is | MSCI Taiwan | Gold MiniShares |
| Total return, 1 year | +84.9% | +19.4% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +67.4 pts | +1.9 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.59% | not published |
| Holdings | 85 | not filed |
EWT in plain words
EWT is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI Taiwan. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +84.9% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.59% 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 85 positions, with the top ten at 51.6%.
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, EWT or GLDM?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, EWT returned +84.9% and GLDM returned +19.4%, so EWT 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, EWT against GLDM, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/EWT-GLDM Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources