Skip to content
etf.net

FGDL vs GLDM

Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF

FGDLBNYSE Arca

SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust

GLDMANYSE Arca

Overlap

0.0%by weight

Expense ratio

GLDM −0.05pt a year

FGDL0.15%GLDM0.10%

Avg volume · 30D

GLDM 246.4×the volume

FGDL18.3KGLDM4.51M

3Y return · a year

GLDM +0.1pt

FGDL+28.4%GLDM+28.5%

FGDL vs GLDM Performance

Oct 14, 2025 – Oct 14, 2026

−1.5%FGDL−1.0%GLDM

Oct 14, 2025 to Oct 14, 2026. FGDL −1.5%. GLDM −1.0%. Use the arrow keys to read each point.10%20%30%Oct 2025Apr 2026Oct 2026
Expense ratio
FGDL 0.15%
GLDM 0.10%, better
Fund size
FGDL $424M
GLDM $31B
1Y total return
FGDL −1.5%
GLDM −1.0%, better
Holdings
FGDL 1
GLDM 1
Avg volume (30D)
FGDL 18.3K sh
GLDM 4.51M sh, better
NAV per share
FGDL $54.41
GLDM $82.47
52W range

ETF.net Grade

FGDL: Cost 77, Risk 49, Mission 100, Tradability 23, Holdings not scored, Durability 32. GLDM: Cost 91, Risk 49, Mission 100, Tradability 67, Holdings not scored, Durability 67.
Pillar letters and Scores for FGDL, GLDM, with each pillar’s weight
PillarFGDLGLDM
Cost30% weightA77A91Higher
Mission25% weightA100A100
Risk15% weightC49C49
Tradability15% weightF23B67Higher
Holdings10% weightNot scoredNot scored
Durability5% weightD32B67Higher

Rank among Physical Gold funds

How we build Categories ›
Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

Same Category. FGDL and GLDM are both graded against the same 10 Physical Gold funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

Physical Gold⁠

Category · 10 funds
See all 10 ›

GLDM ranks 1st and FGDL 3rd of 10 funds in the Physical Gold Category.

  1. Rank 1AGLDMSPDR Gold MiniShares TrustScore 81
  2. Rank 2AIAUMiShares Gold Trust MicroScore 77
  3. Rank 3BFGDLFranklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETFScore 67
  4. Rank 4BSGOLabrdn Physical Gold Shares ETFScore 66

Our read on each fund

ETF.net Research

FGDLBFranklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF

GLDMASPDR Gold MiniShares Trust

In short

FGDL Gold in a vault, with two twists: the bars come with Franklin's responsible-sourcing label, and the fund charges nothing to hold them. Assets are bullion and cash, full stop.

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

FGDL The Fund seeks to track the price of gold bullion, after deducting expenses. Its assets consist only of gold bullion and cash, if any.

GLDM GLDM seeks to reflect the performance of gold bullion, less the fund's expenses.

Why people hold it

  • FGDL A 0.00% expense ratio in a cohort whose median is 0.17%. Even the cheap giants charge something (GLDM 0.10%, IAUM 0.09%, GLD 0.40%).
  • Simple plumbing: a grantor trust that holds gold bullion and cash and tracks the metal's price after expenses. No futures, no swaps, no miners.
  • The responsible-sourcing standard is the pitch in a group where every fund owns the same metal, and Franklin spells it out in the trust's own filings.
  • Does what it says: mandate, wrapper and holdings all line up, and it sits in the upper half of the physical gold cohort.
  • GLDM Ten basis points a year for bullion exposure, below the typical fee among physical gold funds and a quarter of the 0.40% on GLD, the sponsor's original gold trust.
  • Simple plumbing: a grantor trust that holds metal and seeks to reflect gold bullion less expenses. No futures roll, no swap counterparty, no miner-stock beta in the way.
  • One of the strongest implementations in its peer group, and among the more actively traded gold funds, which tends to keep the spread you pay getting in and out modest.
  • Launched in 2018 as the low-fee sibling to the 2004 original, it is now a large, established trust rather than a niche launch hoping to find an audience.

Worth knowing

  • FGDL Thinly traded next to the category's heavyweights, which can mean wider bid/ask spreads on the way in and out.
  • Bullion pays no income, and the fund makes no distributions. The gold price, less costs, is the whole story.
  • Launched in 2022 and far smaller than the decade-old gold trusts, so the track record is short by cohort standards.
  • GLDM Gold pays nothing. No dividends, no interest, and the trust covers its expenses out of the metal, so gold per share drifts down over time.
  • One metal, one price. This is undiversified exposure to bullion, and gold can swing hard in both directions.
  • A couple of rivals list lower headline fees (IAUM at 0.09%, FGDL at 0.00%) for similar physical gold exposure.

Full FGDL profile⁠

Full GLDM profile⁠

FGDL vs GLDM Holdings

Overlap

0.0%by weight

Only FGDL
1
of 1
In both
0
holdings
Only GLDM
1
of 1

Holdings side by side

Top 10 holdings by combined weight
HoldingFGDLGLDM
Gold Oz.Gold Oz.100.02%Not held
Physical GoldPhysical GoldNot held100.00%

All 2 FGDL holdings⁠All GLDM holdings⁠

FGDL vs GLDM Cost

Expense ratio

  • 0.15%FGDL
  • 0.10%GLDM, cheaper
  • Middle half of Physical Gold funds
  • Median 0.17%

GLDM 2nd cheapest of 10 funds

FGDL 3rd cheapest of 10 funds

$1,031less in fees with GLDM over 30 years, on $10,000 invested

$0$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000Start10 years20 years30 years

Assumes $10,000 invested once and 7% growth a year before fees.

FGDL vs GLDM Dividends

Last 12 months to Oct 14, 2026
Payout (12M)
FGDL None
GLDM None

Distribution history

FGDLAll FGDL payments⁠

No distribution history available.

GLDMAll GLDM payments⁠

No distribution history available.

FGDL vs GLDM Risk

Fall from peak · 5 years

This chart needs five years of history for both funds.

Risk facts

VolatilityStd dev, 3 years
FGDL 19.1%GLDM 18.9%, better
Return per unit of riskSharpe ratio, 3 years
FGDL 1.28GLDM 1.29, better
Worst fallMax drawdown, 5 years
FGDL −26.6%since Jun 2022GLDM −26.3%
Market sensitivityBeta, 3 years
FGDL 0.41GLDM 0.41Same figure. Both funds show the same value, so neither comes out ahead.

FGDL and GLDM in the news

All news⁠

Popular comparisons

  • FGDLBvsIAUMA

    Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF · iShares Gold Trust Micro

    Expense ratio
    0.15% · 0.09%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

  • GLDMAvsIAUMA

    SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust · iShares Gold Trust Micro

    Expense ratio
    0.10% · 0.09%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

  • FGDLBvsSGOLB

    Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF · abrdn Physical Gold Shares ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.15% · 0.17%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

  • GLDMAvsSGOLB

    SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust · abrdn Physical Gold Shares ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.10% · 0.17%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

  • FGDLBvsAAAUB

    Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF · Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.15% · 0.18%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

  • GLDMAvsAAAUB

    SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust · Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.10% · 0.18%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.