COPX vs GDXJ: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
COPX and GDXJ are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. COPX is Global X - Copper Miners ETF, while GDXJ is VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF. GDXJ is broader by holdings count, with 119 positions versus 46 for COPX. COPX is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has GDXJ ahead on AIQ Score, 51 versus 42.
What is the main difference between COPX and GDXJ?
COPX and GDXJ both concentrate in Basic Materials, at 97% and 99% of assets, and 1% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | COPX | GDXJ |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.65% | 0.52% |
| Holdings | 46 | 119 |
| Top-10 concentration | 49.4% | 42.3% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 2.44% | 2.46% |
| Average volume | 2,839,927 | 4,812,705 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +26.4% | -1.5% |
| YTD return | +10.3% | -5.2% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +17.9% | +20.8% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 47.1% | 56% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -27.8% | -41.3% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -42.1% | -48.8% |
| Beta | 2.36 | 2.27 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.70 | 0.29 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.03 | 0.41 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 42/100 | 51/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 27/100 | 32/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 44/100 | 41/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Global X - Copper Miners ETF vs VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF
GDXJ leads
GDXJ leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 6 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 1 of 3 evidence groups support GDXJ, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Global X - Copper Miners ETF
VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GDXJ over COPX, 51 versus 42 as of Oct 21, 2026. GDXJ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. GDXJ also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor GDXJ today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 1 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. GDXJ lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Global X - Copper Miners ETF and VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
COPX vs GDXJ: 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 | GDXJ | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.65% | 0.52% | GDXJ |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 46 | 119 | GDXJ |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 49.4% | 42.3% | GDXJ |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 2.44% | 2.46% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -42.1% | -48.8% | COPX |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 47.1% | 56% | 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 GDXJ 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 72GDXJ +11
- Momentum27 vs 32GDXJ +5
- Risk Resilience44 vs 41Even
1 of 3 evidence groups favor GDXJ. GDXJ’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 3 active signals are unchanged.
GDXJ'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 GDXJ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GDXJ (VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
COPX (Global X - Copper Miners ETF): the counter-case, on technicals.
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 | GDXJ | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.65% | 0.52% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 46 | 119 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 2,839,927 | 4,812,705 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 47.1% | 56% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -27.8% | -41.3% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.70 | 0.29 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 2.36 | 2.27 | 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 GDXJ share 0.93% of their weighted exposure across 2 common holdings.
37 holdings are unique to COPX, and 110 holdings are unique to GDXJ. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
COPX is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 49.36% of the fund, against 42.31% for GDXJ (46 holdings vs 119). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | COPX | GDXJ | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3939.HKWANGUO GOLD GROUP LTD | 1.18% | 0.76% | 0.76% |
| CNL.TOCOLLECTIVE MINING LTD | 0.34% | 0.17% | 0.17% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What COPX adds that GDXJ doesn’t
| Holding | COPX | GDXJ |
|---|---|---|
| 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 GDXJ adds that COPX doesn’t
| Holding | GDXJ | COPX |
|---|---|---|
| EQXEquinox Gold Corp | 6.96% | Not held |
| EVN.AXEvolution Mining Ltd | 6.12% | Not held |
| AGIAlamos Gold Inc | 5.76% | Not held |
| EDV.LEndeavour Mining Plc | 5.15% | Not held |
| CDECoeur Mining Inc | 5.04% | Not held |
| PE&OLES.MXIndustrias Penoles Sab De Cv | 2.75% | 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
1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor GDXJ. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GDXJ | 42 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | COPX | Price vs 50-day -10.9% vs -9.9%; vs 200-day -4.6% vs -9.6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 44 vs 41 |
| 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 GDXJ 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 9 points.
- Only 1 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 GDXJ.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20GDXJ lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GDXJ +9
- 42 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- GDXJ +7
- 42 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- GDXJ +6
- 41 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- GDXJ +10
- 60 vs 70
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Aug 5 when GDXJ 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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only GDXJ
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.83%)
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
GDXJ 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 +0.63%, 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 GDXJ's edge.
- 2COPX's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3GDXJ'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
COPX leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | COPX | GDXJ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.2% | -2.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -12% | -15.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.1% | 7.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -2.8% | -12% |
| Year to date | 10.3% | -5.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 26.4% | -1.5% |
Technicals
COPX has the stronger structure| Metric | COPX | GDXJ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 35 | 40.1 |
| ADX (14) | 13.8 | 18 |
| Price vs 50-day | -10.9% | -9.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.6% | -9.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 30.8% | 43.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | COPX | GDXJ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.36 | 2.27 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.7 | 0.29 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.03 | 0.41 |
| Max drawdown | -27.8% | -41.3% |
| Current drawdown | -17.9% | -31% |
| Annualized volatility | 47.1% | 56% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.7% | -5.8% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between COPX and GDXJ?
COPX and GDXJ both concentrate in Basic Materials, at 97% and 99% of assets, and 1% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do COPX and GDXJ overlap?
COPX and GDXJ share 0.93% of their weighted exposure across 2 common holdings. 37 holdings are unique to COPX, and 110 holdings are unique to GDXJ. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, COPX or GDXJ?
GDXJ holds more positions: 119 versus 46 for COPX.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
GDXJ has the lower expense ratio, 0.52% a year against 0.65% for COPX.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 2.44% for COPX and 2.46% for GDXJ.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
GDXJ has been more volatile over the past year, at 56% 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 -48.8% for GDXJ.
Compare COPX and GDXJ 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.