GLDM ranks 1st and BAR 6th of 10 funds in the Physical Gold Category.
BAR vs GLDM
GLDM −0.07pt a year
0.17%0.10%
GLDM 19.4×the volume
221K4.28M
Same figure. Both funds show the same value, so neither comes out ahead.
+17.0%+17.0%
BAR vs GLDM Performance
+118.8%+119.6%
- BAR 0.17%
- GLDM 0.10%, better
- BAR $1.26B
- GLDM $29.6B
- BAR −1.6%
- GLDM −1.5%, better
- BAR 1
- GLDM 1
- BAR 221K sh
- GLDM 4.28M sh, better
- BAR $38.50
- GLDM $77.40
ETF.net Grade
| Pillar | BAR | GLDM |
|---|---|---|
| Cost | B59 | A91Higher |
| Mission | A100 | A100 |
| Risk | C49 | C49 |
| Tradability | D30 | A73Higher |
| Holdings | ||
| Durability | C41 | B67Higher |
Rank among Physical Gold funds
Same Category. BAR and GLDM are both graded against the same 10 Physical Gold funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
Our read on each fund
BARB
GLDMA
In short
BAR Real bars in a London vault, listed one by one on the sponsor's site every day. BAR landed in 2017 as the boutique fee-fighter among gold trusts: no lending, no derivatives, a 0.17% sponsor fee.
GLDM The house that built the original gold ETF later built a cheaper one. GLDM holds physical gold bullion, charges 0.10% a year (a quarter of its older sibling's fee), and has grown into a multi-billion-dollar fund.
Stated mandate
BAR The Trust seeks to have each Share’s value reflect the value of its gold assets after accrued expenses and liabilities, providing a simple way to invest similarly to gold.
GLDM GLDM seeks to reflect the performance of gold bullion, less the fund's expenses.
Why people hold it
Worth knowing
BAR vs GLDM Holdings
How we measure overlap
Each holding counts at its smaller weight in the two funds, summed over the full Holdings. Sector, country and asset class use the same rule on each fund’s split. Cash, FX and derivative lines stay out of the counts. Two bond funds get no overlap figure.
BAR vs GLDM Cost
Overpaying BAR vs GLDM
$1,440
On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.
BAR 0.17%
$3,546
GLDM 0.10%
$2,106
Cost over time
Year by year
| Year | BAR | GLDM | Overpaying |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | $310 | $183 | $127 |
| 20 | $1,211 | $717 | $494 |
| 30 | $3,546 | $2,106 | $1,440 |
- 0.17%BAR
- 0.10%GLDM, cheaper
- Middle half of Physical Gold funds
- Median 0.17%
GLDM 2nd cheapest of 10 funds
BAR 4th cheapest of 10 funds
BAR vs GLDM Dividends
- BAR None
- GLDM None
Distribution history
BAR vs GLDM Risk
Fall from peak · 5 years
- BAR
- GLDM
Risk facts
- Volatility
- BAR 19.4%GLDM 19.4%Same figure. Both funds show the same value, so neither comes out ahead.
- Return per unit of risk
- BAR 1.02GLDM 1.03, better
- Worst fall
- BAR −28.1%GLDM −28.0%, better
- Market sensitivity
- BAR 0.44GLDM 0.41
BAR and GLDM in the news


Deep Dive
The SPDR That Eats Itself




Popular comparisons
- 0.17% · 0.09%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.10% · 0.09%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.17% · 0.17%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.10% · 0.17%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.17% · 0.15%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.10% · 0.15%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.