CONY vs GDXY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
CONY and GDXY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. CONY is YieldMax COIN Option Income Strategy ETF, while GDXY is YieldMax Gold Miners Option Income Strategy ETF. CONY is broader by holdings count, with 18 positions versus 13 for GDXY. GDXY has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has GDXY ahead on AIQ Score, 38 versus 31.
| Metric | CONY | GDXY |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 1.04% | 1% |
| Holdings | 18 | 13 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 122.13% | 80.82% |
| Average volume | 505,804 | 714,891 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -73% | -42.8% |
| YTD return | -54.8% | -41.2% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 62.2% | 41.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -73.6% | -52.1% |
| Beta | 2.55 | 1.64 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.79 | -1.23 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.01 | -1.62 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 31/100 | 38/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 1/10 | 2/10 |
| Momentum | 27/100 | 26/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 7/100 | 22/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
YieldMax COIN Option Income Strategy ETF vs YieldMax Gold Miners Option Income Strategy ETF
GDXY leads
GDXY leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality.
Fragile: 2 of 3 evidence groups support GDXY, and its current signal state is conflicted.
YieldMax COIN Option Income Strategy ETF
YieldMax Gold Miners Option Income Strategy ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GDXY over CONY, 38 versus 31 as of Oct 24, 2026. GDXY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. GDXY also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor GDXY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. GDXY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare YieldMax COIN Option Income Strategy ETF and YieldMax Gold Miners Option Income Strategy ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
CONY vs GDXY: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | CONY | GDXY | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 1.04% | 1% | GDXY |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 18 | 13 | CONY |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 122.13% | 80.82% | CONY |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -73.6% | -52.1% | GDXY |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 62.2% | 41.8% | GDXY |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare CONY and GDXY against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Risk Resilience7 vs 22GDXY +15
- Quality46 vs 56GDXY +10
- Momentum27 vs 26Even
2 of 3 evidence groups favor GDXY. GDXY’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-23, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-22.
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
GDXY's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CONY and GDXY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GDXY (YieldMax Gold Miners Option Income Strategy ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
CONY (YieldMax COIN Option Income Strategy ETF): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 45.3% against 37%.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | CONY | GDXY | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 1.04% | 1% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 18 | 13 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 505,804 | 714,891 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 62.2% | 41.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -73.6% | -52.1% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.79 | -1.23 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 2.55 | 1.64 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
How much of the same holdings they own
CONY and GDXY share 70.17% of their weighted exposure across 5 common holdings.
Every CONY holding is also in GDXY, and 1 holding is unique to GDXY. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | CONY | GDXY | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States Treasury Note/Bond 2.375% 05/15/2027 | 22.93% | 18.63% | 18.63% |
| United States Treasury Bill 02/18/2027 | 19.01% | 17.14% | 17.14% |
| United States Treasury Bill 12/10/2026 | 16.75% | 16.77% | 16.75% |
| United States Treasury Bill 10/15/2026 | 16.58% | 15.59% | 15.59% |
| First American Government Obligations Fund 12/01/2031 | 2.47% | 2.06% | 2.06% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What CONY adds that GDXY doesn’t
CONY has no position of 0.01% or more that GDXY lacks or holds at under half the weight.
What GDXY adds that CONY doesn’t
| Holding | GDXY | CONY |
|---|---|---|
| United States Treasury Bill 07/08/2027 | 18.21% | Not held |
Each list is a fund’s largest positions by weight that the other fund does not hold, or holds at less than half the weight.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor GDXY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GDXY | 31 vs 38 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | CONY | Price vs 50-day -12.1% vs -15.4%; vs 200-day -29.1% vs -29.3% |
| Risk Resilience | GDXY | Risk Resilience 7 vs 22 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CONY and GDXY and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 7 points.
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on GDXY.
How the comparison changed
48 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 23GDXY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GDXY +7
- 31 vs 38
- 7 sessions ago
- GDXY +9
- 31 vs 40
- 30 sessions ago
- GDXY +8
- 32 vs 40
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 7 when GDXY moved ahead of CONY.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral
Only CONY
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.51%)
1 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only GDXY
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 5 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Death Cross Active, 52-Week Low Proximity, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
GDXY leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -2.58%, AIQ -3 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -2.38%, AIQ -1 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1CONY closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to GDXY's edge.
- 2CONY's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3GDXY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 5 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
GDXY leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CONY | GDXY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.2% | -9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -16.5% | -14.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -14.7% | -7.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -38.4% | -34.2% |
| Year to date | -54.8% | -41.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -73% | -42.8% |
Technicals
CONY has the stronger structure| Metric | CONY | GDXY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 32.6 | 31.7 |
| ADX (14) | 17.2 | 26.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.1% | -15.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -29.1% | -29.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 45.3% | 37% |
Risk
GDXY is the more resilient| Metric | CONY | GDXY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.55 | 1.64 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.79 | -1.23 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.01 | -1.62 |
| Max drawdown | -73.6% | -52.1% |
| Current drawdown | -73.6% | -52.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 62.2% | 41.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.4% | -4.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
How much do CONY and GDXY overlap?
CONY and GDXY share 70.17% of their weighted exposure across 5 common holdings. Every CONY holding is also in GDXY, and 1 holding is unique to GDXY. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
Which ETF is more diversified, CONY or GDXY?
CONY holds more positions: 18 versus 13 for GDXY.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
GDXY has the lower expense ratio, 1% a year against 1.04% for CONY.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
CONY, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 122.13% against 80.82% for GDXY.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
CONY has been more volatile over the past year, at 62.2% annualized against 41.8% for GDXY.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
GDXY fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -52.1% against -73.6% for CONY.
Compare CONY and GDXY with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.