Data as of Oct 28, 2026.
GLDM vs REMX: Differences, Returns & Fees
Over the year to Oct 28, 2026, GLDM returned +2.8% to REMX's −19.2%, and GLDM charges 0.10% to REMX's 0.53%.
askIQ about this page
askIQ about GLDM and REMX
Net assets on Oct 27, 2026: $30.6bn for SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust and $1.5bn for VanEck Rare Earth and Strategic Metals ETF.
Pair scorecard
GLDM costs 0.43 points a year less; their one-year returns differ by 22.0 points; GLDM is far larger, $30.6bn against $1.5bn.
| Measure | GLDM | REMX |
|---|---|---|
| Return | ||
| Total return, 1 year | +2.8% | −19.2% |
| Drawdown | ||
| Below its high | 24.5%, high on Jan 29, 2026 | |
| Below its all-time high | 75.1%, high on Apr 11, 2011 | |
| Against its benchmark | ||
| What it tracks | Gold | Rare earth and critical materials |
| Against its benchmark, 1 year | behind by 32.6 pts | |
| Cost and size | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.10% | 0.53% |
| Net assets, as of Oct 27, 2026 | $30.6bn | $1.5bn |
| Active share vs the S&P 500 | 100% | |
| Holdings | ||
| Holdings in common | not published | |
| In the S&P 500, by weight | 9% | |
| Top ten holdings, share of the fund | 61% | |
Risk and return
Jul 6, 2018 to Oct 23, 2026 · 433 weekly returnsEach against its own benchmark: GLDM against GLD, Jul 6, 2018 to Oct 23, 2026; REMX against ACWI, Nov 5, 2010 to Oct 23, 2026.
GLDM returned more: +215.1% to −2.7%. GLDM swung less: 16.0% to 39.8%. GLDM fell less at its worst: −24.0% to −70.4%.
Full scorecard
19 measures, with how each is measured Open ↓
| Measure | GLDM | REMX | Edge | How it is measured |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Return | ||||
| Total return | +215.1% | −2.7% | GLDM | Price change plus distributions, reinvested. |
| Annualized | +14.8% | −0.3% | GLDM | Total return as a yearly rate. |
| Price return | +215.1% | −24.4% | GLDM | Price change alone, distributions left out. |
| Risk | ||||
| Volatility | 16.0% | 39.8% | GLDM | Spread of weekly returns, annualized. Lower is steadier. |
| Downside deviation | 10.5% | 27.0% | GLDM | Like volatility, counting only weeks below the Treasury bill rate. |
| Max drawdown | −24.0% | −70.4% | GLDM | Deepest fall from a high to the low after it. |
| Upside capture | 100.0% | 129.3% | Share of its benchmark's rise caught in the weeks it rose. | |
| Downside capture | 99.6% | 133.0% | Share of its benchmark's fall taken in the weeks it fell. Lower is better. | |
| Beta | 1.00 | 1.43 | Not an edge | How far it moves for each 1% its benchmark moves. |
| R squared | 1.00 | 0.42 | Not an edge | Share of its weekly moves its benchmark explains. |
| Risk-adjusted | ||||
| Sharpe | 0.77 | 0.12 | GLDM | Return above Treasury bills per unit of volatility. |
| Sortino | 1.17 | 0.18 | GLDM | Return above Treasury bills per unit of downside deviation. |
| Treynor | 0.123 | −0.018 | Return above Treasury bills per unit of beta. | |
| Calmar | 0.62 | 0.00 | GLDM | Annualized return divided by the max drawdown. |
| Against the benchmark | ||||
| Benchmark | GLD | ACWI | The ETF each fund is measured against. | |
| Alpha | +0.3% a year | −15.8% a year | GLDM not significant | Yearly return beyond what its beta to the benchmark predicts. |
| Alpha t-stat | 1.42 | −2.33 | Not an edge | How sure the alpha is. Below 2, it could be chance. |
| Alpha range | −0.1% to +0.7% | −29.0% to −2.5% | GLDM includes zero | The 95% range for the yearly alpha. |
| Information ratio | 0.43 | −0.42 | Return against its benchmark per unit of tracking error. | |
| Tracking error | 0.6% | 27.8% | Not an edge | How far weekly returns stray from the benchmark, annualized. |
Computed by ETFIQ from Tiingo daily prices and ETFIQ's distribution records, 433 weekly returns. Cash rate: the 13-week Treasury bill.
Side by side
GLDM and REMX on the fields both publish, as of Oct 28, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
GLDM and REMX do different jobs. What does each one do in a portfolio?
- What each follows. GLDM follows Gold and REMX follows Rare earth and critical materials.
- One-year total return. Over 1 year to Oct 28, 2026 GLDM returned +2.8% and REMX −19.2% with distributions reinvested, a gap of 22.0 points.
- Cost. GLDM charges 0.10% of assets a year and REMX 0.53%, a gap of 0.43 points.
Data as of Oct 28, 2026.
The two-page PDF for this pair is coming. Save the comparison to follow its changes. Free. It needs an email sign-in, once.
Its expense ratio is 0.10% a year, for the three months to Jun 30, 2026, as its 10-Q states.
GLDM holds gold. Over the year to Oct 28, 2026 it returned +2.8% with distributions reinvested, against +2.5% for its benchmark, the price of gold. It sat 24.5% below its high of Jan 29, 2026 on Oct 28, 2026.
REMX
By weight, 9% of REMX's portfolio is stocks that are also in the S&P 500; its active share against the S&P 500 is 100%. The top ten holdings are 61% of the fund across 32 positions, as published by its issuer for Oct 27, 2026. Over the year to Oct 28, 2026 the fund returned −19.2% with distributions reinvested against +13.4% for its benchmark, the MSCI ACWI Index, so a holder was behind by 32.6 pts. It sits 75.1% below its all-time high of Apr 11, 2011.
Questions people ask
- Are GLDM and REMX in the same category?
- GLDM is a commodity ETF and REMX is a thematic ETF, so they do different jobs. The table compares what both publish: return, cost and holdings.
- Which returned more over the last year, GLDM or REMX?
- In the year to Oct 28, 2026, with distributions reinvested, GLDM returned +2.8% and REMX −19.2%.
- Which is cheaper, GLDM or REMX?
- GLDM is cheaper, by 0.43 percentage points a year. That is about $43 on $10,000 held for a year. Fees come from each fund's own filings.
Links are sources, not endorsements. A comparison is not a recommendation.
Cite this pageCitation, APA and Markdown
ETFIQ, GLDM against REMX, data as of Oct 28, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/gldm-vs-remx
ETFIQ. (Oct 28, 2026). GLDM against REMX. Retrieved from https://etfiq.com/compare/any/gldm-vs-remx
[GLDM against REMX (ETFIQ, Oct 28, 2026)](https://etfiq.com/compare/any/gldm-vs-remx)
Free to use with attribution for data ETFIQ computes; issuer data stays under its owner's terms.