Gold ETF costs should be compared on the same date and disclosure basis. An expense ratio, tracking error and tracking difference measure different things. This update removes the earlier approximate, mixed-period ranges and distinguishes verified figures from information not verified for comparison.
Gold ETF Expense Ratio Comparison Table
Checked 27 October 2026. These are dated observations, not a cheapest-fund ranking. In particular, BER is not automatically the all-in TER. Do not rank the rows as though their dates, cost inclusions and tracking-error periods are identical.
| Gold ETF | Expense disclosure and date | Tracking error and period | AUM and date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zerodha Gold ETF | BER 0.30%, product page as of 27 October 2026. All-in TER not verified here. | 0.56% shown on product page as of 27 October; measurement window not stated there, so not ranked against HDFC. | Approximately ₹2,516 crore displayed on the product page checked 27 October 2026. |
| HDFC Gold ETF | 0.59% as of 30 September 2026. Source labels this BER including levies on BER expenses, excluding brokerage, transaction costs and execution-related levies. | 0.39%, annualised using daily rolling returns over the preceding 12 months, as of 30 September 2026. | ₹23,899.78 crore as of 30 September 2026. Not the ₹24,140.14 crore monthly average. |
| UTI Gold ETF; ICICI Prudential Gold ETF; Kotak Gold ETF; Axis Gold ETF; Aditya Birla Sun Life Gold ETF; Invesco India Gold ETF; SBI Gold ETF; Quantum Gold Fund; Nippon India ETF Gold BeES | Comparable current expense, tracking-error and AUM figures not verified in this update. Earlier approximate ranges are withdrawn. “Not verified” does not mean zero, unavailable at the AMC, or that the fund has ceased operating. | ||
For HDFC, see the September 2026 factsheet, printed page 62. For Zerodha, the product page is dynamic: recheck its date before using the figures. A complete same-date TER comparison remains outstanding.
Expense Ratio, Tracking Error and Tracking Difference
- Expense ratio: the published annualised expense measure. Check whether the figure is BER or TER and what it includes. Fund expenses are reflected in NAV.
- Tracking difference: the gap between the fund’s return and benchmark return over the same period. State the subtraction convention.
- Tracking error: the variability of return differences, not simply the amount by which a fund underperformed. Match the measurement window and method.
Dated example: HDFC’s one-year return to 30 September 2026 was 27.41%, against 28.62% for its benchmark. Fund minus benchmark gives a tracking difference of −1.21 percentage points. That is different from its reported 0.39% tracking error. These are historical observations, not future-return estimates.
Do not add TER to historical tracking difference as if both were separate bills: the fund’s NAV return already reflects fund expenses. Brokerage, bid-ask spreads and any premium or discount to NAV can separately affect your own realised return.
Why Do Expense Ratios Differ Across Gold ETFs?
Check the actual disclosure rather than inferring cost from a fund’s size, age or brand. AUM is not a measure of exchange liquidity, and a larger fund is not automatically cheaper. Portfolios can also contain cash or other permitted exposures rather than exactly the same gold position throughout.
What Does a 0.30 Percentage Point Expense Difference Cost?
This is a simplified arithmetic example, not a forecast or a comparison of the funds above. Assume ₹1,00,000, a constant 10% annual return before costs, and constant annual expense assumptions of 0.50% or 0.80%. Approximate net rates are 9.50% and 9.20%; values use ₹1,00,000 × (1 + net rate)years, rounded to the nearest rupee.
| Years | At 9.50% | At 9.20% | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | ₹1,57,424 | ₹1,55,279 | ₹2,145 |
| 10 | ₹2,47,823 | ₹2,41,116 | ₹6,707 |
| 20 | ₹6,14,161 | ₹5,81,370 | ₹32,791 |
Real returns and fees vary; daily accrual, trading costs and taxes are not modelled. This demonstrates compounding, not an expected gold return or a recommended holding period.
Should You Choose the Lowest Expense Ratio Automatically?
No. Check the bid-ask spread and executable order size, the premium or discount to indicative NAV, tracking difference and the published expense basis. A low quoted fee does not guarantee the best outcome for your actual trade.
A Gold Fund of Funds is not the same product as the ETF it holds. Its investors bear its own recurring expenses as well as those of underlying schemes, subject to applicable limits. Compare the correct FoF plan and avoid confusing a Direct FoF expense ratio with an ETF’s expense ratio. HDFC’s September 2026 factsheet explicitly separates its ETF and FoF disclosures.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which Gold ETF is cheapest?
This update does not establish a cheapest fund. That requires the same-date, same-basis expense disclosures for the comparison universe, not approximate ranges from different months.
How often can expenses change?
Do not assume a fixed annual fee. Check the AMC’s latest dated disclosure and any change notice before making a decision.
Should I switch just to save on expenses?
Calculate the potential saving alongside brokerage, spreads and applicable taxes on a sale. A lower annual fee alone does not establish that switching an existing holding is worthwhile.
Key Takeaways
- Match dates and expense definitions before comparing.
- Keep month-end AUM separate from average AUM.
- Tracking error is not tracking difference or an additional fee.
- Missing verification is not a zero value.
- No lowest-cost or best-return claim is established by this table.
Related Reading
Read how Gold ETFs track gold prices, the tracking-error explanation, our gold allocation by age guide and gold portfolio rebalancing guide. These separate guides do not fill the missing matched-date fund data.
Last Updated on 4 days ago by Team Paisaseekho
