COPX vs GDX: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
COPX and GDX are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. COPX is Global X - Copper Miners ETF, while GDX is VanEck Gold Miners ETF. GDX is broader by holdings count, with 66 positions versus 46 for COPX. GDX is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has GDX ahead on AIQ Score, 54 versus 42.
What is the main difference between COPX and GDX?
COPX and GDX both concentrate in Basic Materials, at 97% and 100% of assets, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | COPX | GDX |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.65% | 0.51% |
| Holdings | 46 | 66 |
| Top-10 concentration | 49.4% | 58% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 2.44% | 0.74% |
| Average volume | 2,839,927 | 22,304,941 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +26.4% | +4.3% |
| YTD return | +10.3% | +0.4% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +17.9% | +22.6% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 47.1% | 50.6% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -27.8% | -38.9% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -42.1% | -46.5% |
| Beta | 2.36 | 1.94 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.70 | 0.35 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.03 | 0.50 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 42/100 | 54/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 5/10 |
| Momentum | 27/100 | 38/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 44/100 | 45/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Global X - Copper Miners ETF vs VanEck Gold Miners ETF
GDX leads
GDX leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 6 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 2 of 3 evidence groups support GDX, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Global X - Copper Miners ETF
VanEck Gold Miners ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GDX over COPX, 54 versus 42 as of Oct 21, 2026. GDX's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. GDX also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor GDX today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. GDX lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Global X - Copper Miners ETF and VanEck Gold Miners ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
COPX vs GDX: 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 | COPX | GDX | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.65% | 0.51% | GDX |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 46 | 66 | GDX |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 49.4% | 58% | COPX |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 2.44% | 0.74% | COPX |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -42.1% | -46.5% | COPX |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 47.1% | 50.6% | COPX |
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 COPX and GDX 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.
- Quality61 vs 72GDX +11
- Momentum27 vs 38GDX +11
- Risk Resilience44 vs 45Even
2 of 3 evidence groups favor GDX. GDX’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
GDX's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — COPX and GDX both carry a full feed there.
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 | COPX | GDX | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.65% | 0.51% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 46 | 66 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 2,839,927 | 22,304,941 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 47.1% | 50.6% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -27.8% | -38.9% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.70 | 0.35 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 2.36 | 1.94 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
How much of the same holdings they own
COPX and GDX share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
39 holdings are unique to COPX, and 59 holdings are unique to GDX. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
GDX is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 58.01% of the fund, against 49.36% for COPX (66 holdings vs 46). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
What COPX adds that GDX doesn’t
| Holding | COPX | GDX |
|---|---|---|
| HBM.TOHUDBAY MINERALS INC | 5.45% | Not held |
| TECK-B.TOTECK RESOURCES LTD-CLS B | 5.28% | Not held |
| FM.TOFIRST QUANTUM MINERALS LTD | 5.12% | Not held |
| BHP.AXBHP GROUP LTD | 5.02% | Not held |
| GLEN.LGLENCORE PLC | 4.99% | Not held |
| KGH.WAKGHM POLSKA MIEDZ SA | 4.86% | Not held |
What GDX adds that COPX doesn’t
| Holding | GDX | COPX |
|---|---|---|
| NEMNewmont Corp | 10.96% | Not held |
| AEMAgnico Eagle Mines Ltd | 10.55% | Not held |
| BBarrick Mining Corp | 7.33% | Not held |
| WPMWheaton Precious Metals Corp | 5.88% | Not held |
| AUAnglogold Ashanti Plc | 5.05% | Not held |
| FNVFranco-Nevada Corp | 4.77% | 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 GDX. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GDX | 42 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | GDX | Price vs 50-day -10.9% vs -7%; vs 200-day -4.6% vs -5.4% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 44 vs 45 |
| 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 COPX and GDX and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 GDX.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20GDX lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GDX +12
- 42 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- GDX +9
- 42 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- GDX +6
- 41 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- GDX +9
- 60 vs 69
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jun 23 when GDX moved ahead of COPX.
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.
COPX and GDX carry the same 2 signals, so the signals do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
GDX 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.43%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.72%, 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.
- 1COPX closes the Quality gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to GDX's edge.
- 2COPX's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3GDX's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 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
Split across windows| Metric | COPX | GDX |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.2% | -1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -12% | -12% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.1% | 12.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -2.8% | -7.4% |
| Year to date | 10.3% | 0.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 26.4% | 4.3% |
Technicals
GDX has the stronger structure| Metric | COPX | GDX |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 35 | 46.1 |
| ADX (14) | 13.8 | 17.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -10.9% | -7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.6% | -5.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 30.8% | 39% |
Risk
Split| Metric | COPX | GDX |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.36 | 1.94 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.7 | 0.35 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.03 | 0.5 |
| Max drawdown | -27.8% | -38.9% |
| Current drawdown | -17.9% | -25.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 47.1% | 50.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.7% | -5.1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between COPX and GDX?
COPX and GDX both concentrate in Basic Materials, at 97% and 100% of assets, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do COPX and GDX overlap?
COPX and GDX share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 39 holdings are unique to COPX, and 59 holdings are unique to GDX. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, COPX or GDX?
GDX holds more positions: 66 versus 46 for COPX.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
GDX has the lower expense ratio, 0.51% a year against 0.65% for COPX.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
COPX, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.44% against 0.74% for GDX.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
GDX has been more volatile over the past year, at 50.6% annualized against 47.1% for COPX.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
COPX fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -42.1% against -46.5% for GDX.
Compare COPX and GDX 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.