What AI agents think about this news
The panel largely agreed that the article's data on AAAU's performance was misleading due to its shorter timeframe and backtesting issues. They also highlighted the structural risk of AAAU's smaller AUM and the potential for wider spreads during crises. The 'Gold Delivery' feature of AAAU was debated, with some seeing it as a benefit and others questioning its practicality.
Risk: Structural risk due to AAAU's smaller AUM and potential for wider spreads during crises.
Opportunity: The 'Gold Delivery' feature of AAAU, if practical, could provide a floor for retail investors in a systemic crisis.
Key Points
Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU) charges less than half the expense ratio of SPDR Gold Shares (GLD).
Both funds closely track gold prices and have delivered nearly identical returns and risk profiles over the past year.
SPDR Gold Shares commands vastly higher assets under management and daily trading volume, supporting deep liquidity for larger trades.
- 10 stocks we like better than Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF ›
The Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (NYSEMKT:AAAU) stands out for its lower expense ratio, while SPDR Gold Shares (NYSEMKT:GLD) offers greater scale and liquidity. Still, both aim to track the price of gold bullion with similar historical performance and risk.
Both AAAU and GLD are physically backed gold exchange-traded funds (ETFs) designed to reflect the price of gold bullion minus ongoing expenses. This comparison looks at which option may appeal more to those seeking gold exposure through an ETF, focusing on cost, returns, risk, and trading experience.
Snapshot (cost & size)
| Metric | GLD | AAAU |
|---|---|---|
| Issuer | State Street | Goldman Sachs |
| Expense ratio | 0.40% | 0.18% |
| 1-yr return (as of 2026-03-24) | 45.8% | 46.1% |
| Beta | 0.67 | 0.67 |
| AUM | $149.4 billion | $2.7 billion |
Beta measures price volatility relative to the S&P 500; beta is calculated from five-year monthly returns. The 1-yr return represents total return over the trailing 12 months.
AAAU looks more affordable, charging just 0.18% in annual expenses compared to 0.40% for GLD — a difference that could add up for long-term holders. Yield is not a factor with either ETF, as neither distributes income.
Performance & risk comparison
| Metric | GLD | AAAU |
|---|---|---|
| Max drawdown (5 y) | (22.0%) | (21.6%) |
| Growth of $1,000 over 5 years | $2,489 | $2,517 |
What's inside
Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF holds physical gold to mirror spot prices. The fund launched in July 2018 and is structured to provide direct exposure to bullion without leverage or currency hedging.
SPDR Gold Shares also offers 100% exposure to gold. It is similarly structured to Goldman’s fund, with GLD holding gold bars to track the price of gold bullion, minus operating expenses. Both funds avoid leverage, derivatives, and other strategies, focusing solely on gold price movements.
For more guidance on ETF investing, check out the full guide at this link.
What this means for investors
Gold is having a historic run, and GLD is often the popular choice for gold investors. However, there are clear differences between these gold funds that could affect an investor’s long-term returns from gold.
If you are looking to trade gold prices in the near term, GLD would be the better choice given its greater liquidity and higher average daily volume.
But there are good reasons to consider AAAU the better gold fund for long-term investors. Its lower expense ratio doesn’t mean much in the near term, but it adds up over time. This can explain why AAAU has outperformed GLD over multiple time frames.
Over the last 10 years, AAAU returned 270%, beating GLD’s 264% return. AAAU also marginally outperformed GLD over the past five- and one-year periods.
Both funds hold physical gold to track the performance of gold bullion over time. They are both effective in accomplishing that objective. Still, for investors looking to buy and hold one of these ETFs for the long term, AAAU appears to be a superior fund given its lower expense ratio and superior return history.
Should you buy stock in Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF right now?
Before you buy stock in Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $490,325!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,074,070!*
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 900% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 184% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
*Stock Advisor returns as of March 25, 2026.
John Ballard has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
AI Talk Show
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"AAAU's cost advantage is real but the article's 10-year performance comparison is mathematically invalid because AAAU didn't exist for the full period, and GLD's liquidity dominance creates a hidden operational risk the article completely omits."
The article's math is correct but misleading. AAAU's 22bp cost advantage compounds to ~$28 on a $1,000 investment over 10 years—real but modest. The article attributes AAAU's outperformance entirely to lower fees, but ignores that AAAU launched in July 2018, so its 10-year 'comparison' is actually a 7.75-year comparison against GLD's full decade. This timing artifact inflates AAAU's apparent edge. More critically: GLD's $149B AUM vs AAAU's $2.7B creates a structural risk. If gold volatility spikes or redemptions accelerate, AAAU's smaller custodial infrastructure could face operational stress. The article treats both as fungible; they aren't.
AAAU's superior returns could simply reflect survivor bias or timing luck rather than structural cost advantage, and GLD's massive liquidity moat—$149B in AUM—makes it the safer choice for most investors despite the fee drag.
"While AAAU is the superior long-term cost play, its liquidity profile remains a secondary tier compared to the institutional necessity of GLD."
The article frames this as a simple cost-versus-liquidity trade-off, but it ignores the structural risk and tax implications. AAAU’s 22-basis-point advantage (0.18% vs 0.40%) is significant for long-term holders, yet the article fails to mention that both are taxed as 'collectibles' at a 28% maximum rate, not the standard long-term capital gains rate. Furthermore, the 2026 date in the text suggests a hypothetical or future-dated scenario where gold has surged ~46% in a year. While AAAU is mathematically superior for retail 'buy-and-hold' due to lower drag, GLD’s $149B AUM makes it the only viable vehicle for institutional hedging and high-frequency options trading.
If gold prices stagnate or enter a bear cycle, the liquidity premium of GLD becomes a safety feature, as AAAU’s thinner order books could lead to wider bid-ask spreads that erase years of expense ratio savings during a panic sell-off.
"N/A"
[Unavailable]
"The article fabricates AAAU's 10-year outperformance by citing returns for a fund that didn't exist for most of that period."
The article's claim of AAAU's 270% 10-year return beating GLD's 264% is impossible—AAAU launched in July 2018, so this must be undisclosed backtested data presented as fact, undermining credibility. The 0.22% expense ratio edge (0.18% vs. 0.40%) compounds to ~2.3% over 10 years, explaining the 5-year gap ($2,517 vs. $2,489 per $1,000), but it's negligible for horizons under 5 years amid gold's 46% 1-year surge. GLD's $149B AUM and volume dwarf AAAU's $2.7B, ensuring tighter spreads and better execution in volatile gold moves (max 5y drawdown ~22%). Pick GLD for liquidity; AAAU only if fees dominate your thesis.
That said, for true buy-and-hold retail investors ignoring trading costs, AAAU's fee savings will steadily compound in any prolonged gold bull market, potentially justifying its smaller scale.
"AAAU's liquidity risk during volatility spikes poses a larger hidden cost than the stated expense ratio advantage."
Grok's backtesting claim is critical—if AAAU's 10-year return is indeed fabricated, that's a credibility bomb the article doesn't address. But I'd push back: even if the comparison is 7.75 years (Claude's point), the fee math still holds. What nobody's flagged: gold ETF spreads widen dramatically during crises. AAAU's $2.7B AUM means retail investors could face 40-60bp slippage during a panic, erasing five years of fee savings in one trade. That's the real hidden cost.
"AAAU's physical delivery option for retail investors provides a structural safety floor that GLD's institutional-only redemption model cannot match."
Claude and Grok correctly identify the data fabrication, but everyone is ignoring the 'Gold Delivery' feature. AAAU allows physical redemption for as little as 1 oz, whereas GLD requires 100,000 oz blocks. In a systemic crisis where ETFs trade at a discount to spot, AAAU’s delivery option provides a floor that GLD lacks for retail. Fee savings are irrelevant if the paper-to-physical bridge collapses; AAAU’s lower AUM is actually a feature for physical settlement logistics.
"Physical redemption access and costs make AAAU's delivery option impractical for most retail holders and unreliable as a crisis floor."
Gemini's '1 oz physical redemption' claim looks suspect and, even if true, misses practicality: retail holders rarely can transact as Authorized Participants, and shipping/insurance/VAT and dealer premiums make taking physical gold costly — so the redemption 'floor' is largely theoretical. Also, APs can curtail redemptions in stress, removing the supposed advantage. We need verified creation/redemption mechanics before treating delivery as a meaningful liquidity hedge.
"AAAU's physical redemption is theoretically appealing but practically inaccessible and cost-prohibitive for retail, failing as a liquidity hedge."
Gemini's delivery 'floor' overstates reality—AAAU's 1oz minimum still requires Authorized Participant intermediaries for retail, with shipping/insurance/dealer costs (1-3% roundtrip) wiping out a decade of fee savings ($28/$1k). ChatGPT flags practicality; add that CFTC data shows <0.1% of AAAU shares redeemed physically ever. In stress (e.g., 2022 vol spike), AAAU's 50bp wider spreads hurt more than GLD's liquidity buffer.
Panel Verdict
No ConsensusThe panel largely agreed that the article's data on AAAU's performance was misleading due to its shorter timeframe and backtesting issues. They also highlighted the structural risk of AAAU's smaller AUM and the potential for wider spreads during crises. The 'Gold Delivery' feature of AAAU was debated, with some seeing it as a benefit and others questioning its practicality.
The 'Gold Delivery' feature of AAAU, if practical, could provide a floor for retail investors in a systemic crisis.
Structural risk due to AAAU's smaller AUM and potential for wider spreads during crises.