Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
GLDM vs IWM: how they differ
GLDM is a commodity fund and IWM an equity index fund, and over the year IWM returned more, +21.2% against +19.4%.
SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust and iShares Russell 2000 ETF.
| GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust | IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | iShares |
| What it is | Gold MiniShares | Russell 2000 |
| Total return, 1 year | +19.4% | +21.2% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +1.9 pts | +3.7 pts |
| Expense ratio | not published | 0.19% |
| Holdings | not filed | 2014 |
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.
IWM in plain words
IWM is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 2000. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +21.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.19% 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 2014 positions, with the top ten at 3.4%. It sat 5.3% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, GLDM or IWM?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, GLDM returned +19.4% and IWM returned +21.2%, so IWM 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, GLDM against IWM, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/GLDM-IWM Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources