Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
GLDM vs URTH: how they differ
GLDM is a commodity fund and URTH an equity index fund, and over the year GLDM returned more, +19.4% against +17.4%.
SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust and iShares MSCI World ETF.
| GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust | URTH iShares MSCI World ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | iShares |
| What it is | Gold MiniShares | MSCI World |
| Total return, 1 year | +19.4% | +17.4% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +1.9 pts | −0.1 pts |
| Expense ratio | not published | 0.24% |
| Holdings | not filed | 1322 |
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.
URTH in plain words
URTH is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI World. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.24% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 70% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1322 positions, with the top ten at 27.8%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, GLDM or URTH?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, GLDM returned +19.4% and URTH returned +17.4%, so GLDM 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 URTH, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/GLDM-URTH Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources