DBC vs GDXJ: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
DBC and GDXJ are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. DBC is Invesco DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund, while GDXJ is VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF. GDXJ is broader by holdings count, with 119 positions versus 53 for DBC. GDXJ has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has DBC ahead on AIQ Score, 73 versus 51.
| Metric | DBC | GDXJ |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.89% | 0.52% |
| Holdings | 53 | 119 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 2.22% | 2.46% |
| Average volume | 906,495 | 4,812,705 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +51.6% | -1.5% |
| YTD return | +50.1% | -5.2% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +12.2% | +20.8% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 20.8% | 56% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.5% | -41.3% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -27.4% | -48.8% |
| Beta | -0.39 | 2.27 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.93 | 0.29 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.96 | 0.41 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 73/100 | 51/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 10/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 78/100 | 32/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 87/100 | 41/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund vs VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF
DBC leads
DBC leads by 22 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 17 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 3 of 3 evidence groups support DBC, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Invesco DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund
VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DBC over GDXJ, 73 versus 51 as of Oct 21, 2026. DBC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while GDXJ holds the stronger quality profile. DBC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor DBC today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. DBC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 22 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Invesco DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund and VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
DBC 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 | DBC | GDXJ | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.89% | 0.52% | GDXJ |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 53 | 119 | GDXJ |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 2.22% | 2.46% | GDXJ |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -27.4% | -48.8% | DBC |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 20.8% | 56% | DBC |
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 DBC 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.
- Momentum78 vs 32DBC +46
- Risk Resilience87 vs 41DBC +46
- Quality63 vs 72GDXJ +9
3 of 3 evidence groups favor DBC. DBC’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; GDXJ keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 8 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
DBC's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DBC and GDXJ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DBC (Invesco DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
GDXJ (VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF): the counter-case, on quality — but at materially higher volatility, 43.8% against 15%.
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 | DBC | GDXJ | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.89% | 0.52% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 53 | 119 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 906,495 | 4,812,705 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 20.8% | 56% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.5% | -41.3% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.93 | 0.29 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | -0.39 | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor DBC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | DBC | 73 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | DBC | Price vs 50-day 4.2% vs -9.9%; vs 200-day 16.5% vs -9.6% |
| Risk Resilience | DBC | Risk Resilience 87 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 DBC and GDXJ 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 22 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 3 of 3 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 DBC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20DBC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 22 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- DBC +22
- 73 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- DBC +22
- 71 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- DBC +17
- 64 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 70 vs 70
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Aug 5 when GDXJ moved ahead of DBC.
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.
5 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only DBC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.44%)
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.1%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only GDXJ
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.83%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
DBC 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 -0.21%, 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.
- 1GDXJ closes the Momentum gap — currently 46 points behind, the largest single contributor to DBC's edge.
- 2GDXJ's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3DBC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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.
Fundamentals
Split| Metric | DBC | GDXJ |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -100% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 174.6% | — |
| Gross margin | 100% | — |
| Operating margin | 78.5% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 20.4% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0 | — |
Performance
DBC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | DBC | GDXJ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.3% | -2.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.5% | -15.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 12.4% | 7.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 14.9% | -12% |
| Year to date | 50.1% | -5.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 51.6% | -1.5% |
Technicals
DBC has the stronger structure| Metric | DBC | GDXJ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 70.6 | 40.1 |
| ADX (14) | 24.2 | 18 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.2% | -9.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.5% | -9.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15% | 43.8% |
Risk
DBC is the more resilient| Metric | DBC | GDXJ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.39 | 2.27 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.93 | 0.29 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.96 | 0.41 |
| Max drawdown | -16.5% | -41.3% |
| Current drawdown | -0.5% | -31% |
| Annualized volatility | 20.8% | 56% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -5.8% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF is more diversified, DBC or GDXJ?
GDXJ holds more positions: 119 versus 53 for DBC.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
GDXJ has the lower expense ratio, 0.52% a year against 0.89% for DBC.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
GDXJ, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.46% against 2.22% for DBC.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
GDXJ has been more volatile over the past year, at 56% annualized against 20.8% for DBC.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
DBC fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -27.4% against -48.8% for GDXJ.
Compare DBC 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.