DBC vs PDBC ETF Comparison
Compare DBC and PDBC across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between DBC and PDBC?
DBC is Invesco DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund, while PDBC is Invesco Optimum Yield Diversified Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF. DBC is tied to Alternatives; PDBC is tied to Alternatives. PDBC is broader by holdings count, with 2 positions versus 1 for DBC. PDBC has the lower expense ratio in the current fund profile.
| Metric | DBC | PDBC | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.89% | 0.74% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $2.0B | $7.7B | Fund |
| Holdings | 1 | 2 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | 28.8% | - | Fund |
| Average volume | 1,748,847 | 5,578,411 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Alternatives | Alternatives | Fund |
| 1Y return | +50.2% | +50.4% | Performance |
| YTD return | +42.9% | +44.1% | Performance |
| Annualized volatility | 20.6% | 20.6% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -16.5% | -16.6% | Risk |
| Beta | -0.31 | -0.31 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.93 | 1.93 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | 2.91 | 2.91 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 74/100 | 76/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 10/10 | 10/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 79/100 | 79/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 86/100 | 77/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund vs Invesco Optimum Yield Diversified Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF
PDBC leads
PDBC leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality.
Fragile: 0 of 3 evidence groups support PDBC, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Invesco DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund
Invesco Optimum Yield Diversified Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PDBC over DBC, 76 versus 74 as of Sep 11, 2026. PDBC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while DBC holds the stronger risk resilience profile. PDBC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 0 of 3 covered evidence groups favor PDBC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. PDBC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Invesco DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund and Invesco Optimum Yield Diversified Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison for both ETFs using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare DBC and PDBC 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.
- Quality63 vs 72PDBC +9
- Risk Resilience86 vs 77DBC +9
- Momentum79 vs 79Even
0 of 3 evidence groups favor PDBC. PDBC’s edge is concentrated in quality; DBC keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -1
No new signals fired.
PDBC's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DBC and PDBC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PDBC (Invesco Optimum Yield Diversified Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
DBC (Invesco DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
PDBCPDBC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
DBCDBC on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
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 | PDBC | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.89% | 0.74% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $2.0B | $7.7B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 36 | 2 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,748,847 | 5,578,411 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 20.6% | 20.6% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -16.5% | -16.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.93 | 1.93 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | -0.31 | -0.31 | 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.
Weighted holdings overlap is not available for this pair. Sector exposure above is a related but different measure — it says how much of each fund sits in the same parts of the market, not how much of the same securities they hold.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, DBC or PDBC?
PDBC currently has more reported holdings, with 2 positions versus 1.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
PDBC has the lower reported expense ratio in the current fund profile.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
The current dataset does not show a higher-yield winner.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
PDBC has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
DBC has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
PDBC currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 76 to 74.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
0 of 3 covered evidence groups favor PDBC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 74 vs 76 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 11.5% vs 11.5%; vs 200-day 22.8% vs 22.9% |
| Risk Resilience | DBC | Risk Resilience 86 vs 77 |
| 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 PDBC 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 narrow at 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 PDBC.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10PDBC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PDBC +2
- 74 vs 76
- 7 sessions ago
- PDBC +2
- 73 vs 75
- 30 sessions ago
- PDBC +4
- 69 vs 73
- 90 sessions ago
- PDBC +3
- 57 vs 60
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 20 when PDBC 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.
6 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.61%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
6 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.73%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
PDBC 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 -1.37%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.3%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1DBC closes the Quality gap — currently 9 points behind, the largest single contributor to PDBC's edge.
- 2DBC's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3PDBC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 2 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 | PDBC |
|---|---|---|
| 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
Split across windows| Metric | DBC | PDBC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 5.3% | 5.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 11.7% | 11.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 15.3% | 15% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 19.5% | 19.6% |
| Year to date | 42.9% | 44.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 50.2% | 50.4% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | DBC | PDBC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 78.3 | 78 |
| ADX (14) | 29.2 | 28.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 11.5% | 11.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 22.8% | 22.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.6% | 17.4% |
Risk
DBC is the more resilient| Metric | DBC | PDBC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.31 | -0.31 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.93 | 1.93 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.91 | 2.91 |
| Max drawdown | -16.5% | -16.6% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | 0% |
| Annualized volatility | 20.6% | 20.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, DBC or PDBC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PDBC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 76 against DBC's 74. The edge comes from quality. DBC is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is DBC or PDBC the better buy right now?
PDBC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 0 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor PDBC over DBC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. PDBC leads Quality by 9 points; DBC leads Risk Resilience by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, DBC or PDBC?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, DBC or PDBC?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, DBC or PDBC?
The two are level on Momentum. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, DBC or PDBC?
DBC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. DBC on Risk Resilience, by 9 points. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is DBC more profitable than PDBC?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is PDBC's lead over DBC getting stronger or weaker?
PDBC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-20, when PDBC moved ahead of DBC.
What would change the DBC vs PDBC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: DBC closes the Quality gap — currently 9 points behind, the largest single contributor to PDBC's edge; DBC's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; PDBC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; a 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.
What do the current signals say about DBC and PDBC?
DBC: 6 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. PDBC: 6 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on DBC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PDBC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare DBC and PDBC 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.