Skip to content
etf.net

GLAM vs ICOP

Corgi Beauty, Skincare & Aesthetics ETF

GLAMCCboe

iShares Copper and Metals Mining ETF

ICOPBNasdaq

Overlap

Expense ratio

GLAM −0.12pt a year

GLAM0.35%ICOP0.47%

Avg volume · 30D

ICOP 72.6×the volume

GLAM1.37KICOP99.1K

GLAM vs ICOP Performance

Aug 7, 2026 – Nov 9, 2026

+6.9%GLAM−10.6%ICOP

Aug 7, 2026 to Nov 9, 2026. GLAM +6.9%. ICOP −10.6%. Use the arrow keys to read each point.−15%−5%0%10%Aug 2026Sep 2026Nov 2026
Expense ratio
GLAM 0.35%, better
ICOP 0.47%
Fund size
GLAM $2M
ICOP $397M
1Y total return
GLAM No data
ICOP +32.7%
Yield (12M)
GLAM No data
ICOP 1.81%
Holdings
GLAM 26
ICOP 80
Avg volume (30D)
GLAM 1.37K sh
ICOP 99.1K sh, better
NAV per share
GLAM $30.41
ICOP $46.93
52W range

ETF.net Grade

GLAM: Cost 94, Risk 91, Mission not scored, Tradability 39, Holdings 26, Durability 6. ICOP: Cost 82, Risk 43, Mission not scored, Tradability 80, Holdings 41, Durability 77.
Pillar letters and Scores for GLAM, ICOP, with each pillar’s weight
PillarGLAMICOP
Cost30% weightA94HigherA82
Mission25% weightNot scoredNot scored
Risk15% weightA91HigherC43
Tradability15% weightD39A80Higher
Holdings10% weightD26C41Higher
Durability5% weightF6A77Higher

Rank among Global Thematic funds

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

Same Category. GLAM and ICOP are both graded against the same 18 Global Thematic funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

Global Thematic⁠

Category · 18 funds
See all 18 ›

ICOP ranks 3rd and GLAM 11th of 18 funds in the Global Thematic Category.

  1. Rank 1AFITEState Street SPDR S&P Kensho Future Security ETFScore 78
  2. Rank 2AAGNGGlobal X Aging Population ETFScore 69
  3. Rank 3BICOPiShares Copper and Metals Mining ETFScore 68
  4. Rank 3BWRNDNYLI Global Equity R&D Leaders ETFScore 68
  5. Rank 9CTINYProShares Nanotechnology ETFScore 44
  6. Rank 11CGLAMCorgi Beauty, Skincare & Aesthetics ETFScore 40
  7. Rank 11COPPGWisdomTree GeoAlpha Opportunities FundScore 40

Our read on each fund

ETF.net Research

GLAMCCorgi Beauty, Skincare & Aesthetics ETF

ICOPBiShares Copper and Metals Mining ETF

In short

GLAM No data

ICOP The copper-miner aisle has a price leader. ICOP tracks a global index of copper and metals miners for 0.47% a year, the lowest sticker in its peer group, with BlackRock's indexing machinery behind it.

Stated mandate

GLAM No data

ICOP The Fund seeks to track an index of U.S. and non-U.S. equities of companies primarily engaged in copper and metal ore mining.

Why people hold it

GLAM No data

  • ICOP At 0.47% a year it is the cheapest fund in the copper-mining cohort, undercutting COPX (0.65%), COPP (0.66%), COPJ (0.75%) and KCOP (0.99%), and sitting below the group's 0.66% median.
  • A rules-based pure play: it follows the STOXX Global Copper and Metals Mining Index, holding companies primarily engaged in copper and metal ore mining. Miners' shares, not copper futures, and no stock-picking.ishares.com
  • Global by mandate, not by accident: the index reaches U.S. and non-U.S. miners, which is where much of the world's copper actually trades. Distributions are paid quarterly.ishares.com
  • One of the stronger builds in a small copper-mining field, pairing the lowest fee in the group with a mainstream iShares index wrapper.

Worth knowing

GLAM No data

  • ICOP Non-diversified by design: a few dozen miners levered to one metal, with the largest names carrying a big slice. Copper prices and mine-level news drive the ride.ishares.com
  • A large share of the basket is listed outside the U.S., so currency moves and foreign market risks come along with the copper exposure.ishares.com
  • It launched in 2023, so the live record is short, and trading is moderate rather than heavy. Limit orders earn their keep on bigger tickets.

Full GLAM profile⁠

Full ICOP profile⁠

GLAM vs ICOP 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.

GLAM vs ICOP Cost

Overpaying ICOP vs GLAM

$2,292

On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.

  • GLAM 0.35%

    $7,126

  • ICOP 0.47%

    $9,418

$10,000
30 years

Cost over time

  • GLAM 0.35%
  • ICOP 0.47%
  • Overpaying
One line per fund, from year 0 to year 30. Use the arrow keys to read each point.$0$2K$4K$6K$8K$10K051015202530ICOP $9,418GLAM $7,126

Year by year

YearGLAMICOPOverpaying
10$634$847$213
20$2,454$3,261$807
30$7,126$9,418$2,292

Expense ratio

  • 0.35%GLAM, cheaper
  • 0.47%ICOP
  • Middle half of Global Thematic funds
  • Median 0.58%

GLAM 2nd cheapest of 18 funds

ICOP 5th cheapest of 18 funds

GLAM vs ICOP Dividends

Last 12 months to Nov 9, 2026
Yield (12M)
GLAM No data
ICOP 1.81%
Payout (12M)
GLAM None
ICOP $0.89
Last payment
GLAM No data
ICOP $0.27
Ex-dividend
GLAM No data
ICOP Jun 15, 2026
Paid on
GLAM No data
ICOP Jun 18, 2026
Frequency
GLAM No data
ICOP Twice a year

Distribution history

Per share, 2023 to 2026, same scale for both

GLAMAll GLAM payments⁠

No distribution history available.

ICOPTwice a year · 7 paymentsAll ICOP payments⁠
One bar per payment. 7 payments from 2023 to 2026 YTD. Dec 20, 2023 $0.55; Jun 11, 2024 $0.05; Dec 17, 2024 $0.42; Jun 16, 2025 $0.30; Dec 16, 2025 $0.59; Dec 30, 2025 $0.03; Jun 15, 2026 $0.27. Use the arrow keys to read each point.$0$0.5020232026YTD

GLAM vs ICOP Risk

Fall from peak · 5 years

This chart needs five years of history for both funds.

Risk facts

VolatilityStd dev, 3 years
GLAM No dataICOP 30.3%
Return per unit of riskSharpe ratio, 3 years
GLAM No dataICOP 0.93
Worst fallMax drawdown, 5 years
GLAM No dataICOP −38.6%since Jun 2023
Market sensitivityBeta, 5 years
GLAM −0.77ICOP 1.34

Popular comparisons

  • GLAMCvsFITEA

    Corgi Beauty, Skincare & Aesthetics ETF · State Street SPDR S&P Kensho Future Security ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.35% · 0.45%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

  • ICOPBvsFITEA

    iShares Copper and Metals Mining ETF · State Street SPDR S&P Kensho Future Security ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.47% · 0.45%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

  • GLAMCvsAGNGA

    Corgi Beauty, Skincare & Aesthetics ETF · Global X Aging Population ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.35% · 0.50%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

  • ICOPBvsAGNGA

    iShares Copper and Metals Mining ETF · Global X Aging Population ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.47% · 0.50%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

  • GLAMCvsWRNDB

    Corgi Beauty, Skincare & Aesthetics ETF · NYLI Global Equity R&D Leaders ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.35% · 0.18%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

  • ICOPBvsWRNDB

    iShares Copper and Metals Mining ETF · NYLI Global Equity R&D Leaders ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.47% · 0.18%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.