What is the main difference in costs between IAUM and PHYS?

The primary cost difference lies in their expense ratios. IAUM has an annual expense ratio of 0.09%, whereas PHYS charges 0.41%. This results in a difference of 0.32 percentage points annually. For investors, this means holding PHYS theoretically incurs higher annual management fees compared to IAUM. Over time, these fees reduce the net return of the investment relative to the price movement of gold. It is crucial to note that a higher fee does not necessarily imply superior performance, but it does represent a higher base cost for maintaining the position.

How do these funds structure their exposure to the gold market?

IAUM is categorised as 'Commodities Focused' and is an ETF managed by iShares. PHYS is a trust structure by Sprott, specifically designed for physical bullion storage. While IAUM is a relatively newer fund with an inception date of 15 June 2021, PHYS has been available since 25 February 2010. Both provide investors with exposure to the price of gold. However, the structural differences between an exchange-traded fund and a closed-end or trust entity can affect how investors buy, hold, or redeem shares, depending on their specific needs.

What information is available regarding the internal holdings of these funds?

Detailed data regarding the internal holdings for both IAUM and PHYS is currently unavailable. Specifically, top holdings and sector weightings are listed as 'not available' for both funds. Consequently, investors cannot directly compare the concentration risk or specific composition of the assets within each fund using this dataset. Typically, gold-focused funds hold physical gold or gold-related instruments, but without disclosed holdings data, transparency is limited. This lack of detail means investors must rely on the fund's stated objective and expense ratios rather than granular portfolio analysis.

How does the expense ratio impact long-term investment returns?

Expense ratios are recurring fees that reduce an investor's return. With IAUM at 0.09% and PHYS at 0.41%, the difference is 0.32% per year. On an investment of $10,000, this difference amounts to $32 annually. Over a ten-year period, assuming constant fees and no other variables, this cost differential accumulates significantly. While this does not guarantee better performance for the lower-cost fund, it creates a higher hurdle for the physical trust to clear in order to match the net return of the ETF. Fees are a certain cost, whereas price appreciation is not.

Which fund offers income through dividends?

Neither IAUM nor PHYS offers a dividend yield. Both funds have a reported dividend yield of 0.00%. Gold is a non-income-producing asset, meaning it does not generate cash flow like stocks or bonds. Therefore, these funds do not distribute income to shareholders. Investors seeking income would typically look for different asset classes. The total return for these funds relies entirely on changes in the price of gold. The absence of dividends implies that the tax treatment and wealth accumulation strategy differ significantly from income-generating ETFs or funds.

What is the relative size of these funds?

IAUM has substantial net assets of $8.1 billion, indicating significant investor adoption and liquidity. In contrast, the net assets for PHYS are listed as 'not available'. This discrepancy means that a direct size comparison is not possible with the current data. Generally, larger asset bases are associated with tighter bid-ask spreads and easier liquidity, which are favourable for active traders. However, the trust structure of PHYS may operate with different liquidity mechanics compared to the exchange-traded nature of IAUM. Investors should be aware that size can influence ease of trade.

How do these funds relate to broader market movements?

As commodities-focused entities, both IAUM and PHYS generally track the spot price of gold. Their performance is usually inversely correlated or uncorrelated with traditional equity markets, making them potential tools for diversification. Since neither fund has an 'Index Tracked' designation listed, their specific replication methods are not detailed. However, their primary driver remains the gold market. Changes in real interest rates, inflation expectations, and currency fluctuations (particularly the US dollar) are the key market forces that influence the price movements these funds aim to capture.

What is the inception significance of these two funds?

PHYS has a longer history, with an inception date of 25 February 2010. IAUM is much younger, launched on 15 June 2021. The ten-year difference suggests PHYS has endured more market cycles, providing a longer operational track record. However, IAUM's recent inception reflects a newer product offering from iShares, often associated with lower costs and modern ETF structures. Investors sometimes weigh the reliability of established trusts against the efficiency and cost-savings of newer, low-fee exchange-traded funds. Both entities have navigated the gold market, but during different economic periods.

What are the similarities in their portfolio composition?

There is no overlap in their reported top-ten holdings. In fact, there are no shared top-10 holdings among the listed data. This is common when comparing distinct physical gold products, as they may hold gold in different vaults or through different custodial arrangements. Since both funds have 'not available' data for specific top holdings and sector weights, a detailed portfolio analysis is impossible. Investors should view them as distinct vehicles for gold exposure, differing in structure and management rather than specific asset overlap, given the lack of disclosed holdings data.

How should investors interpret the lack of sector weightings?

Both IAUM and PHYS have 'not available' sector weightings. For commodity funds, sector weightings are less relevant than for equity funds, as the primary asset is physical gold or derivatives. This metric is primarily used to analyse industry concentration in stock portfolios. The absence of this data does not indicate a problem with the funds themselves but reflects the nature of the asset class. Investors focusing on sector diversification may find these funds useful as they typically do not expose capital to specific industrial sectors like technology or financials, but rather to the commodity market.

What educational disclaimers apply to this comparison?

This comparison is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. The data provided, such as expense ratios (0.09% for IAUM and 0.41% for PHYS) and net assets, is sourced from Yahoo Finance and is accurate as of 22 September 2026. Missing data points, such as sector weightings and top holdings for both funds, are explicitly noted as 'not available'. Investors should conduct their own due diligence, consult a qualified financial professional, and review current prospectuses before making investment decisions. Past performance or fee structures are not indicators of future results.

IAUM vs PHYS

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

This page compares the iShares Gold Trust (IAUM) and the Sprott Physical Gold Trust (PHYS), focusing on their fees, holdings, dividends, and how each tracks the gold market. IAUM has an expense ratio of 0.09%, while PHYS is at 0.41%. Both offer a dividend yield of 0.00%. Specifics on index tracking are not available for either fund. Educational content, not financial advice.

This page compares the iShares Gold Trust (IAUM) and the Sprott Physical Gold Trust (PHYS), focusing on their fees, holdings, dividends, and how each tracks the gold market. IAUM has an expense ratio ...

Fund Snapshot

Key Fund Metrics

IAUM

Metric

PHYS

0.09%

Expense Ratio

0.41%

0.00%

Dividend Yield

0.00%

$8.09B

Net Assets

–

Holdings

–

Jun 15, 2021

Inception Date

Feb 25, 2010

–

Index Tracked

–

Commodities Focused

Fund Category

–

IAUM costs about $32.00 less per year for every $10,000 invested.

Shared Top Holdings

These funds do not share any of their top holdings.

Discover More Comparisons

IAUM vs SGOL

Compare IAUM and SGOL gold ETFs. Review expense ratios, net assets, inception dates, dividend yields and tracking features to assess fund differences.

Bancolombia vs Sprott Physical Gold Trust

Bancolombia operates as a full-service commercial bank across Latin America, while Sprott Physical Gold Trust simply holds bullion and tracks spot prices, putting an earnings-driven financial institution against a passive hard-asset vehicle. Both attract investors worried about currency risk and macro instability, just through completely different mechanisms. Bancolombia vs Sprott Physical Gold Trust examines how credit exposure, dividend sustainability, and gold's inflation hedge role appeal to different risk appetites.

Ares Capital vs Sprott Physical Gold Trust

Ares Capital is the largest publicly traded BDC, generating consistent dividend income by lending to middle-market private companies across first-lien and subordinated structures, while Sprott Physical Gold Trust simply holds allocated gold bullion in a Canadian vault and tracks the metal's price. Both attract income or defensive investors, but the risk-and-return mechanics are fundamentally different. The Ares Capital vs Sprott Physical Gold Trust comparison clarifies how credit spreads, leverage, and default risk in private credit compare to a non-yielding hard asset that investors buy purely for monetary insurance.

Investment Analysis

IAUM

Pros

The fund offers a low annual expense ratio of 0.09%.
It holds substantial net assets of $8.1 billion.
The underlying category is commodities focused for clear exposure.

Considerations

The fund has no dividend yield to provide income.
Top holdings information is currently not available for review.
Sector weightings are not available to assess concentration risk.

PHYS

Pros

The fund has a long inception date of February 2010.
A commodity-focused structure provides direct physical gold exposure.
The trust structure is specifically designed for physical bullion storage.

Considerations

The annual expense ratio is relatively high at 0.41%.
Net asset value is not available for size evaluation.
Detailed top holdings are not available for portfolio analysis.

Related Market Insights

Fed Independence Under Fire: Why Smart Money is Fleeing to Safety

Supreme Court challenge to Fed independence threatens markets. Discover how smart money is investing in defensive assets like consumer staples, utilities, and gold.