FEPI vs GDXY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
FEPI and GDXY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. FEPI is REX FANG & Innovation Equity Premium Income ETF, while GDXY is YieldMax Gold Miners Option Income Strategy ETF. FEPI is broader by holdings count, with 66 positions versus 13 for GDXY. FEPI has the lower expense ratio.
What is the main difference between FEPI and GDXY?
FEPI holds 66 positions to GDXY's 13, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | FEPI | GDXY |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.65% | 1% |
| Holdings | 66 | 13 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 26.4% | 75.39% |
| Average volume | 201,586 | 719,195 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -12.2% | -45.6% |
| YTD return | -9% | -39.1% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 20.6% | 42.2% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -23.3% | -50% |
| Beta | 1.30 | 1.61 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.75 | -1.18 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.14 | -1.53 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 42/100 | 42/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 2/10 |
| Momentum | 29/100 | 35/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 75/100 | 27/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
REX FANG & Innovation Equity Premium Income ETF vs YieldMax Gold Miners Option Income Strategy ETF
FEPI and GDXY are effectively level
FEPI and GDXY are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
REX FANG & Innovation Equity Premium Income ETF
YieldMax Gold Miners Option Income Strategy ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate FEPI and GDXY as of Oct 21, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare REX FANG & Innovation Equity Premium Income ETF and YieldMax Gold Miners Option Income Strategy ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
FEPI vs GDXY: 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 | FEPI | GDXY | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.65% | 1% | FEPI |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 66 | 13 | FEPI |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 26.4% | 75.39% | GDXY |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -23.3% | -50% | FEPI |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 20.6% | 42.2% | FEPI |
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 FEPI and GDXY 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.
- Risk Resilience75 vs 27FEPI +48
- Quality45 vs 56GDXY +11
- Momentum29 vs 35GDXY +6
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Quality +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FEPI and GDXY 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 | FEPI | GDXY | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.65% | 1% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 66 | 13 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 201,586 | 719,195 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 20.6% | 42.2% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -23.3% | -50% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.75 | -1.18 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.30 | 1.61 | 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
FEPI and GDXY share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
23 holdings are unique to FEPI, and 6 holdings are unique to GDXY. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
What FEPI adds that GDXY doesn’t
| Holding | FEPI | GDXY |
|---|---|---|
| METAMETA PLATFORMS INC | 7.37% | Not held |
| TSLATesla Inc. | 6.79% | Not held |
| ORCLORACLE CORP | 6.67% | Not held |
| AMDADVANCED MICRO DEVICES INC | 6.64% | Not held |
| SNDKSANDISK CORP/DE SNDKV | 6.61% | Not held |
| AAPLAPPLE INC | 6.6% | Not held |
What GDXY adds that FEPI doesn’t
| Holding | GDXY | FEPI |
|---|---|---|
| United States Treasury Note/Bond 2.375% 05/15/2027 | 18.63% | Not held |
| United States Treasury Bill 07/08/2027 | 18.21% | Not held |
| United States Treasury Bill 02/18/2027 | 17.14% | Not held |
| United States Treasury Bill 12/10/2026 | 16.77% | Not held |
| United States Treasury Bill 10/15/2026 | 15.59% | Not held |
| First American Government Obligations Fund 12/01/2031 | 2.06% | 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
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 42 vs 42 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | FEPI | Price vs 50-day -2.1% vs -9%; vs 200-day -3% vs -24.1% |
| Risk Resilience | FEPI | Risk Resilience 75 vs 27 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20FEPI lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 42 vs 42
- 7 sessions ago
- FEPI +2
- 42 vs 40
- 30 sessions ago
- FEPI +11
- 49 vs 38
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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.
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral
Only FEPI
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only GDXY
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Death Cross Active, Downtrend Structure Active.
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 +0.22%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.41%, AIQ 0 points).
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
FEPI leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | FEPI | GDXY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.3% | -1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.8% | -12.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.3% | -2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.9% | -29% |
| Year to date | -9% | -39.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -12.2% | -45.6% |
Technicals
FEPI has the stronger structure| Metric | FEPI | GDXY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 36.4 | 42.1 |
| ADX (14) | 20.9 | 23.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.1% | -9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -3% | -24.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.4% | 33.4% |
Risk
FEPI is the more resilient| Metric | FEPI | GDXY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.3 | 1.61 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.75 | -1.18 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.14 | -1.53 |
| Max drawdown | -23.3% | -50% |
| Current drawdown | -16.4% | -48.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 20.6% | 42.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -4.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between FEPI and GDXY?
FEPI holds 66 positions to GDXY's 13, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do FEPI and GDXY overlap?
FEPI and GDXY share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 23 holdings are unique to FEPI, and 6 holdings are unique to GDXY. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, FEPI or GDXY?
FEPI holds more positions: 66 versus 13 for GDXY.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
FEPI has the lower expense ratio, 0.65% a year against 1% for GDXY.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
GDXY, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 75.39% against 26.4% for FEPI.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
GDXY has been more volatile over the past year, at 42.2% annualized against 20.6% for FEPI.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
FEPI fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -23.3% against -50% for GDXY.
Compare FEPI and GDXY 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.