What are the main structural differences between GLD and GLTR regarding their assets under management?

GLD boasts net assets of $147.8 billion, significantly larger than GLTR's $2.8 billion. Both funds fall under the Commodities Focused category. While GLD has an inception date of November 18, 2004, GLTR was launched later on October 22, 2010. Neither fund provides specific index tracking data or sector weights in the current dataset, making their primary distinguishing factors their size, age, and expense ratios rather than detailed portfolio holdings.

How do the expense ratios of these two precious metals ETFs compare?

The expense ratio is an annual fee charged by the fund. GLD charges 0.40% per year, whereas GLTR charges a higher rate of 0.60%. This creates a difference of 0.20 percentage points. For investors, this fee impacts net returns over time. Although the absolute difference seems small, it compounds over decades. Potential investors should consider whether the underlying exposure or strategy justifies the lower fee structure of GLD compared to the higher fee of GLTR in this specific comparison.

What does the difference in fees mean for an investor's long-term returns?

Over time, lower fees generally enhance net returns, assuming all else is equal. Since GLD costs 0.40% and GLTR costs 0.60%, the 0.20 percentage point difference reduces the annual return for GLTR holders relative to GLD holders. For example, on a $10,000 investment, this translates to a $20 difference in annual costs. Compounding this effect over several years can lead to a meaningful variance in final portfolio value, making cost efficiency a key metric when comparing similar commodity-focused ETFs.

Do these ETFs offer significant dividend income to investors?

Based on the provided data, both GLD and GLTR report a dividend yield of 0.00%. This is typical for physical metal or commodity-focused funds, as they do not generate cash flow like equities. Instead of dividends, any value appreciation comes from price movements of the underlying metals. Investors seeking regular income streams might find these funds unsuitable, as they primarily offer capital exposure to precious metals rather than yield-generating distribution mechanisms.

Are the top holdings of GLD and GLTR similar?

The data indicates that there are no shared top-10 holdings between GLD and GLTR. Furthermore, specific top holdings are not available for either fund in this dataset. Consequently, it is impossible to directly compare their specific portfolio compositions using this information. Investors looking for overlap in specific metal types or corporate holdings would need to consult additional documentation, as the current summary highlights a lack of shared top-10 positions among listed holdings.

Which investing goal is typically associated with commodity-focused ETFs like these?

Commodity-focused ETFs such as GLD and GLTR are generally utilised by investors seeking diversification and an inflation hedge. They provide exposure to precious metals without the need for physical storage. Investors often add these to portfolios to mitigate volatility in equity or bond markets during economic uncertainty. The goal is usually capital preservation or hedging against currency debasement, rather than aggressive growth, aligning with the nature of gold and precious metals as store-of-value assets.

How does the inception date of these funds affect their track record?

GLD has been available since November 18, 2004, offering a longer historical track record compared to GLTR, which launched on October 22, 2010. A longer inception date allows investors to observe performance through more economic cycles. However, past performance is not indicative of future results. The age difference means GLD has established itself over a longer period, while GLTR is relatively newer in the context of the provided data, though both have over a decade of availability.

What should investors know about tracking methods for these funds?

Currently, the data lists 'not available' for the index tracked by both GLD and GLTR. This lack of specific tracking information means investors cannot verify if they passively follow a specific benchmark like the LBMA Gold Price or a broader precious metals index. Without this detail, understanding the exact methodology for price determination is crucial. Investors should research the fund prospectus to confirm how the net asset value is calculated and what specific baskets of metals, if any, the funds aim to replicate.

GLD vs GLTR

Two funds, one decision: we compare cost, performance and what each ETF actually holds in September 2026.

Compare Gold Shares SPDR (GLD) with the Abrdn Precious Metals Basket ETF (GLTR). This page outlines key differences in expense ratios, net assets, dividends, and tracking methods. GLD charges 0.40% while GLTR charges 0.60%. Both funds show 0.00% dividend yield and no top holdings available. Educational content, not financial advice.

Compare Gold Shares SPDR (GLD) with the Abrdn Precious Metals Basket ETF (GLTR). This page outlines key differences in expense ratios, net assets, dividends, and tracking methods. GLD charges 0.40% wh...

Fund Snapshot

Key Fund Metrics

GLD

Metric

GLTR

0.40%

Expense Ratio

0.60%

0.00%

Dividend Yield

0.00%

$147.75B

Net Assets

$2.77B

2

Holdings

4

Nov 18, 2004

Inception Date

Oct 22, 2010

–

Index Tracked

–

Commodities Focused

Fund Category

Commodities Focused

GLD costs about $20.00 less per year for every $10,000 invested.

Shared Top Holdings

These funds do not share any of their top holdings.

Why It’s Moving

Gold ETF GLD Faces Pressure as Hawkish Fed Signals and Strong Dollar Test Critical Support

Hawkish monetary policy expectations and a rally in the U.S. dollar drove spot gold below $4,300 an ounce, directly impacting GLD's performance as investors repriced rate hike bets.
Stronger-than-expected September flash S&P Composite PMI data at 58.4 signaled robust services sector activity, reducing immediate safe-haven demand and pressuring precious metals.
Despite near-term volatility, institutional forecasts highlight limited downside risk with TD Securities projecting a move above $5,000 and Goldman Sachs citing undisclosed sovereign buying, particularly from China, as a key long-term driver.

Sentiment:

🐻Bearish

Gold ETF GLD Faces Pressure as Hawkish Fed Signals and Strong Dollar Test Critical Support

Hawkish monetary policy expectations and a rally in the U.S. dollar drove spot gold below $4,300 an ounce, directly impacting GLD's performance as investors repriced rate hike bets.
Stronger-than-expected September flash S&P Composite PMI data at 58.4 signaled robust services sector activity, reducing immediate safe-haven demand and pressuring precious metals.
Despite near-term volatility, institutional forecasts highlight limited downside risk with TD Securities projecting a move above $5,000 and Goldman Sachs citing undisclosed sovereign buying, particularly from China, as a key long-term driver.

Sentiment:

🐻Bearish

Discover More Comparisons

GLD vs IAUM

Compare GLD and IAUM gold ETFs on fees, net assets, dividend yields and holdings. GLD has a 0.40% expense ratio, IAUM 0.09%. Index tracking not available.

GLD vs GLDM

GLD vs GLDM compared: both hold physical gold, but GLD charges 0.40% and GLDM 0.10%. Size, history, tracking and which gold trust fits your goals.

GLD vs SGDM

Compare GLD and SGDM. Review expense ratios, net assets, and dividend yields. Analyse holdings to understand tracking differences for informed investment.

Investment Analysis

GLD

Pros

:
pros.0.string, pros.1.string, pros.2.string, cons.0.string, cons.1.string, cons.2.string
pros.0.string, pros.1.string, pros.2.string, cons.0.string, cons.1.string, cons.2.string

Considerations

Cons 1
Cons 2
Cons 3

GLTR

Pros

Pro 1
Pro 2
Pro 3

Considerations

Cons 1
Cons 2
Cons 3

Related Market Insights

Safe Haven Gold Rush: The Mining Opportunity Hidden in Plain Sight

Geopolitical tensions drive safe-haven demand for gold & silver. Explore how mining companies offer leveraged investment opportunities. Discover the Neme on Nemo.