Data as of Sep 4, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

GLD vs IJH

SPDR Gold Shares and iShares Core S&P Mid-Cap ETF.

GLD and IJH on the fields both publish, as of Sep 4, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
GLD
SPDR Gold Shares
IJH
iShares Core S&P Mid-Cap ETF
Where it sitsCore fundCore fund
IssuerState StreetiShares
What it isGoldS&P MidCap 400
Total return, 1 year+24.5%+16.9%
S&P 500 over the same days+20.0%+20.0%
Gap to the S&P 500+4.5 pts−3.0 pts
Expense rationot published0.05%
Holdingsn/a400

GLD in plain words

GLD is a commodity fund tracking Gold. Over the year to Sep 4, 2026 it returned +24.5% with distributions reinvested, against +20.0% for the S&P 500 and +25.6% for the Nasdaq-100. It sat 18.0% below its high of Jan 29, 2026 on Sep 4, 2026.

IJH in plain words

IJH is a index equity fund tracking S&P MidCap 400. Over the year to Sep 4, 2026 it returned +16.9% with distributions reinvested, against +20.0% for the S&P 500 and +25.6% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.05% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 400 positions, with the top ten at 7.7%. It sat 3.6% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 4, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, GLD or IJH?
In the year to Sep 4, 2026, with distributions reinvested, GLD returned +24.5% and IJH returned +16.9%, so GLD 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.

GLD against IJH, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 4, 2026. Every figure is arithmetic on a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, GLD against IJH, data as of Sep 4, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/GLD-IJH.html Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources