VS
When evaluating costs, GLDD features a management fee (MER) of 1.8%, compared to 0.25% for ZEB. Performance-wise, GLDD has returned 2.46% year-to-date with -$2 M in net flows, whereas ZEB is at 35.79% with +$267 M. Use the comparison tool below to benchmark these funds across top 10 holdings, yield, sector weights and historical returns.
NAV Performance and Flows
Key Data
Compare
GLDD
ZEB
| AuM | $3.13 M | $7,493.90 M |
| Management Fees | 1.80% | 0.25% |
| Exp. ratio | 2.02% | 0.28% |
| Tracking Difference | - | -0.65% |
Historical performance and flows
As of July 17, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | GLDD | +16.97% | +42.95% | +2.46% | -39.93% | -77.32% |
ZEB | +6.04% | +19.90% | +35.79% | +71.33% | +157.89% | |
| Flows | GLDD | -$3 M | -$5 M | -$2 M | +$0 M | +$4 M |
ZEB | +$1,233 M | +$1,278 M | +$267 M | +$768 M | -$484 M |
GLDD vs ZEB exposure
Countries
GLDD
Exposure data will be available soon
ZEB
Canada
100.00%
Sectors
GLDD
Exposure data will be available soon
ZEB
Finance
100.00%
As of July 17, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
GLDD
Exposure data will be available soon
ZEB
The Toronto-Dominion Bank
17.52%
Royal Bank of Canada
17.09%
Bank of Montreal
16.85%
The Bank of Nova Scotia
16.38%
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
16.27%
National Bank of Canada
15.89%
Diversification
GLDD
Exposure data will be available soon
ZEB
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 6 total
100.00%
Characteristics
Compare
GLDD
ZEB
| Provider | Global X | BMO |
| Management | Passively managed | Passively managed |
| Benchmark | Solactive Gold Front Month MD Rolling Futures Index ER - USD | Solactive Equal Weight Canada Banks GTR Index - CAD |
| Replication Method | Direct (Physical) | |
| Asset Class | Commodity | Equity |
| Dividend Policy | Capitalization | Distributing |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | 0.00% | 2.23% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | January 22, 2008 | October 20, 2009 |
Frequently asked questions about GLDD and ZEB
Which ETF has performed better year to date: GLDD or ZEB?
As of July 17, 2026, GLDD has returned 2.46% year to date, while ZEB has returned 35.79%. ZEB is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: GLDD or ZEB?
As of July 17, 2026, GLDD manages $3.13 M in assets, while ZEB manages $7.49 B. ZEB is the larger fund by AUM.
How are GLDD and ZEB managed?
GLDD is passively managed by Global X. It tracks the Solactive Gold Front Month MD Rolling Futures Index ER - USD benchmark. ZEB is passively managed by BMO. It tracks the Solactive Equal Weight Canada Banks GTR Index - CAD benchmark.
Which ETF is attracting more investor flows: GLDD or ZEB?
Year to date, GLDD has seen -$2.42 M in net flows, compared with +$266.52 M for ZEB. ZEB has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of GLDD and ZEB compare?
GLDD has an expense ratio of 2.02%, while ZEB has an expense ratio of 0.28%.
Recent articles about GLDD and ZEB
Bank Stocks: An Undervalued Gem?
Bank stocks are poised for growth amid declining inflation and rate cuts.
Posted on 7/29/2024 by ETF Market Canada inBanks
The ETF Market Canada is brought to you by Cboe in partnership with Trackinsight SA who is providing all the data, analysis and editorial content on this site. Unless explicitly stated as such, any information that you receive is not real-time.
All content on the ETF Market Canada is for your general information use only, Cboe is not responsible for any use of content by you outside this scope. In particular, the content does not constitute any form of advice, recommendation, representation, endorsement or arrangement by Cboe and is not intended to be relied upon by users in making (or refraining from making) any specific investment or other decisions.
All content on the ETF Market Canada is for your general information use only, Cboe is not responsible for any use of content by you outside this scope. In particular, the content does not constitute any form of advice, recommendation, representation, endorsement or arrangement by Cboe and is not intended to be relied upon by users in making (or refraining from making) any specific investment or other decisions.