COPX vs UNG: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
COPX and UNG are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. COPX is Global X - Copper Miners ETF, while UNG is United States Natural Gas Fund LP. COPX is broader by holdings count, with 46 positions versus 16 for UNG. COPX has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has UNG ahead on AIQ Score, 58 versus 42.
| Metric | COPX | UNG |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.65% | 1.17% |
| Holdings | 46 | 16 |
| Average volume | 2,839,927 | 15,240,597 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +26.4% | -9.3% |
| YTD return | +10.3% | -14.4% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +17.9% | -33.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 47.1% | 58.7% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -27.8% | -43% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -42.1% | -92.9% |
| Beta | 2.36 | -0.69 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.70 | 0.02 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.03 | 0.03 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 42/100 | 58/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 7/10 |
| Momentum | 27/100 | 57/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 44/100 | 42/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Global X - Copper Miners ETF vs United States Natural Gas Fund LP
UNG leads
UNG leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality.
Stable: 2 of 3 evidence groups support UNG.
Global X - Copper Miners ETF
United States Natural Gas Fund LP
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors UNG over COPX, 58 versus 42 as of Oct 21, 2026. UNG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. UNG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor UNG today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. UNG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 16 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Global X - Copper Miners ETF and United States Natural Gas Fund LP across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
COPX vs UNG: 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 | UNG | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.65% | 1.17% | COPX |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 46 | 16 | COPX |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -42.1% | -92.9% | COPX |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 47.1% | 58.7% | 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 UNG 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.
- Momentum27 vs 57UNG +30
- Quality61 vs 67UNG +6
- Risk Resilience44 vs 42Even
2 of 3 evidence groups favor UNG. UNG’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
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 +14
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
UNG's lead widened by 6 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — COPX and UNG 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 | UNG | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.65% | 1.17% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 46 | 16 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 2,839,927 | 15,240,597 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 47.1% | 58.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -27.8% | -43% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.70 | 0.02 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 2.36 | -0.69 | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor UNG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | UNG | 42 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | UNG | Price vs 50-day -10.9% vs -5%; vs 200-day -4.6% vs -6.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 44 vs 42 |
| 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 UNG 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 16 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 UNG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20UNG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- UNG +16
- 42 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- UNG +15
- 42 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- UNG +17
- 41 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- COPX +5
- 60 vs 55
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Sep 10 when UNG 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
Only COPX
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.73%)
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
Only UNG
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (7.32%)
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bearish Crossover.
COPX is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 6 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -5.05%, AIQ +6 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 Momentum gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to UNG's edge.
- 2COPX's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3UNG starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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.
Fundamentals
Split| Metric | COPX | UNG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | — | 0% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | — | 74% |
| Gross margin | — | 0% |
| Operating margin | — | 0% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | — | 14.3% |
| Debt to equity | — | 0 |
Performance
COPX leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | COPX | UNG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.2% | -8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -12% | -3.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.1% | -0.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -2.8% | -4.1% |
| Year to date | 10.3% | -14.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 26.4% | -9.3% |
Technicals
UNG has the stronger structure| Metric | COPX | UNG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 35 | 52.1 |
| ADX (14) | 13.8 | 14 |
| Price vs 50-day | -10.9% | -5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.6% | -6.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 30.8% | 45.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | COPX | UNG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.36 | -0.69 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.7 | 0.02 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.03 | 0.03 |
| Max drawdown | -27.8% | -43% |
| Current drawdown | -17.9% | -37.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 47.1% | 58.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.7% | -4.6% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF is more diversified, COPX or UNG?
COPX holds more positions: 46 versus 16 for UNG.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
COPX has the lower expense ratio, 0.65% a year against 1.17% for UNG.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
UNG has been more volatile over the past year, at 58.7% 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 -92.9% for UNG.
Compare COPX and UNG 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.