Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
GLDM vs VUG: how they differ
GLDM is a commodity fund and VUG an equity index fund, and over the year GLDM returned more, +19.4% against +12.9%.
SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust and Vanguard Growth Index Fund.
| GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust | VUG Vanguard Growth Index Fund | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | Vanguard |
| What it is | Gold MiniShares | US growth |
| Total return, 1 year | +19.4% | +12.9% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +1.9 pts | −4.6 pts |
| Expense ratio | not published | 0.03% |
| Holdings | not filed | 147 |
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.
VUG in plain words
VUG is an index equity fund tracking the US growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +12.9% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 97% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 147 positions, with the top ten at 60.5%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, GLDM or VUG?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, GLDM returned +19.4% and VUG returned +12.9%, 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 VUG, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/GLDM-VUG Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources