What are the key structural differences in expense ratios between RING and SGDM?

RING has an expense ratio of 0.39%, while SGDM charges 0.46%. This represents a 0.07 percentage point difference. Expense ratios are annual fees deducted from the fund's assets, impacting net returns. Over time, even small differences can compound, making RING structurally cheaper to hold than SGDM. These ratios are transparent metrics allowing investors to compare ongoing costs directly. Lower fees often enhance long-term net performance, assuming all other factors remain equal between the two gold miner ETFs.

How do the inception dates and net assets of these two funds compare?

RING was launched on 31 January 2012 and manages substantial net assets of $2.5 billion, indicating longer operational history and likely greater liquidity. In contrast, SGDM was established on 15 July 2014 and has net assets of $713 million. The larger asset base of RING may support easier trading, while SGDM's smaller size and more recent launch reflect different stages of growth and investor adoption within the precious metals sector.

What does it mean when index methodology or issuer data is not available?

For both RING and SGDM, the specific index tracked is listed as 'not available' in the current data. Similarly, the issuer name for SGDM is missing, whereas RING is issued by iShares. When such data is not available, investors cannot independently verify the exact construction rules or corporate oversight. This limits the ability to assess how each fund selects holdings or adheres to specific benchmarks, requiring reliance on alternative metrics like fees and asset size.

How do the top holdings and concentration weights differ between RING and SGDM?

RING's top holding, Newmont (NEM), accounts for 16.37% of the portfolio, indicating significant single-stock concentration. Conversely, SGDM's top holding is NEM at a much lower 7.42%, with Coeur Mining (CDE) at 3.57%. This difference suggests SGDM distributes its exposure more evenly across top positions, potentially reducing single-company risk. RING's higher weight in NEM means its performance is more sensitive to that specific mining company's outcomes compared to SGDM's broader allocation.

Which funds share common top holdings and how does this affect diversification?

Both RING and SGDM share Newmont (NEM) and Coeur Mining (CDE) in their top 10 holdings. For RING, CDE represents 3.38% of the fund, while for SGDM, CDE is 3.57%. Despite these overlaps, the portfolio structures diverge significantly in weighting. The shared holdings indicate a core exposure to major gold producers, but the concentration levels differ, with RING heavily weighted toward NEM and SGDM maintaining a more balanced approach across its top assets.

Are sector weight breakdowns available for comparing RING and SGDM portfolios?

Currently, sector weight breakdowns for the portfolios of both RING and SGDM are listed as 'not available'. This absence prevents a detailed comparison of how much each fund is allocated to specific sub-sectors within the precious metals industry. Investors relying on sector rotation strategies may find this data gap limiting. Without visible sector weights, assessing the precise thematic exposure or balancing of mining versus exploration segments remains challenging for both ETFs.

How do the dividend yields of RING and SGDM compare for income-focused investors?

RING offers a dividend yield of 1.08%, whereas SGDM provides a yield of 0.91%. This means RING generates higher current income per dollar invested compared to SGDM. Dividend yields fluctuate based on holding payouts and share prices. Investors seeking immediate cash flow from their gold miner exposure may note RING's slight advantage in yield, although this does not necessarily correlate with total return or capital appreciation potential in either fund.

How might the liquidity of SGDM differ from RING due to net asset size?

RING's net assets of $2.5 billion are significantly larger than SGDM's $713 million. Larger net assets typically correlate with higher trading volumes and tighter bid-ask spreads, enhancing liquidity. Conversely, SGDM's smaller size may affect trading ease, potentially leading to wider spreads during high volatility. For market participants, this structural difference is crucial for understanding execution costs and the ability to enter or exit positions efficiently without impacting the fund's market price.

What is the significance of RING's longer operational history versus SGDM?

RING's inception in January 2012 provides a longer track record than SGDM, which started in July 2014. A longer operational history allows for more extensive performance data analysis across various market cycles, including gold price booms and corrections. While this offers potential confidence in the fund's management stability, it does not guarantee future results. SGDM, being more modern, lacks this multi-decade context but may employ updated construction methodologies if known.

How does the concentration of top holdings impact market risk exposure?

RING's 16.37% weight in Newmont creates higher idiosyncratic risk compared to SGDM's 7.42% weight. High concentration means RING's performance is heavily tied to Newmont's operational successes or failures. SGDM's lower top-holding weight distributes risk more broadly. In market downturns affecting specific miners, RING may experience sharper declines than SGDM due to this single-stock dependency, illustrating how holding concentration directly influences a fund's sensitivity to individual company news.

Which fund aligns better with goals prioritising lower ongoing costs?

For investors prioritising lower ongoing costs, RING is typically associated with such goals due to its 0.39% expense ratio, compared to SGDM's 0.46%. The 0.07 percentage point difference translates to lower annual fee deductions from the fund's assets. Over extended periods, this cost efficiency can compound, potentially preserving more capital for the investor. However, goal fit must also consider other factors like dividend yields and holding concentration, not just fees alone.

How should beginners interpret the absence of available tracking index data?

Beginners should interpret the absence of available tracking index data for both RING and SGDM as a limitation in comparing their exact strategies. Without knowing the specific benchmarks, investors cannot determine if the funds follow capitalisation-weighted, equal-weighted, or modified approaches. This opacity suggests relying more heavily on tangible metrics like expense ratios, net assets, and top holding weights to assess each fund's behaviour. It highlights the importance of seeking additional documentation from issuers where possible.

RING vs SGDM

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

Compare RING (iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF) and SGDM (Sprott ETF Gold Miners ETF) to evaluate fees, holdings, dividends, and how each fund tracks its market. RING has a 0.39% expense ratio, while SGDM has 0.46%. Educational content, not financial advice.

Compare RING (iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF) and SGDM (Sprott ETF Gold Miners ETF) to evaluate fees, holdings, dividends, and how each fund tracks its market. RING has a 0.39% expense ratio, whi...

Fund Snapshot

Key Fund Metrics

RING

Metric

SGDM

0.39%

Expense Ratio

0.46%

1.08%

Dividend Yield

0.91%

$2.50B

Net Assets

$712.86M

52

Holdings

52

Jan 31, 2012

Inception Date

Jul 15, 2014

–

Index Tracked

–

Equity Precious Metals

Fund Category

Equity Precious Metals

RING costs about $7.00 less per year for every $10,000 invested.

Shared Top Holdings

Holding	RING	SGDM
NEMNewmont Corporation	16.37%	7.42%
CDECoeur Mining, Inc.	3.38%	3.57%

Discover More Comparisons

RING vs SLVP

Compare RING and SLVP. Both track precious metals miners with 0.39% fees. Review holdings, dividends, and net assets to decide which fund fits your research.

GDX vs SGDM

Compare GDX and SGDM on fees, holdings, dividends and tracking. GDX costs 0.51%, SGDM 0.46%. Top holdings include NEM and AU. Index data not available.

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

RING

Pros

RING offers a lower expense ratio of 0.39 percent compared to its peer fund.
The fund manages substantial net assets of 2.5 billion dollars, potentially aiding liquidity.
It was launched in January 2012, giving it a longer operational history than SGDM.

Considerations

Its top holding, Newmont, has a significant concentration weight of 16.37 percent.
The index methodology tracked by the fund is currently listed as not available.
Sector weight breakdowns for the portfolio are also listed as not available.

SGDM

Pros

SGDM has a slightly higher dividend yield of 0.91 percent versus its peer.
Its top holding has a lower concentration weight of 7.42 percent compared to RING.
The fund was established in July 2014, offering a relatively modern launch date.

Considerations

The fund carries a higher expense ratio of 0.46 percent than the comparison.
Net assets are significantly smaller at 713 million dollars, which may affect trading.
The issuer name for the fund is listed as not available in the data.

Related Market Insights

The New Gold Rush: Fed Probe Sparks Flight to Safety

A criminal probe into the Fed Chair has sent gold prices soaring to record highs. Discover how Nemo's Gold Rush Neme helps investors gain exposure to this ultimate safe haven asset.

Aimee Silverwood | Financial Analyst

13 January 2026

Read Insight

Related Market Insights

The New Gold Rush: Fed Probe Sparks Flight to Safety

A criminal probe into the Fed Chair has sent gold prices soaring to record highs. Discover how Nemo's Gold Rush Neme helps investors gain exposure to this ultimate safe haven asset.

Aimee Silverwood | Financial Analyst

13 January 2026

Read Insight

About RING and SGDM

RING (RING)

SGDM (SGDM)

Which Baskets Do They Appear In?

Gold Rush: Could Fed Probe Drive Safe Haven Demand?

An unprecedented criminal probe into the Federal Reserve Chair has sparked a flight to safety, driving gold prices to record highs. This theme focuses on gold miners and related companies that stand to benefit from sustained demand for this safe-haven asset.

Published: 13 January 2026

Explore Basket