GDXY vs GPTY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
GDXY and GPTY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. GDXY is YieldMax Gold Miners Option Income Strategy ETF, while GPTY is YieldMax AI & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF. GPTY is broader by holdings count, with 96 positions versus 13 for GDXY. GDXY has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has GDXY ahead on AIQ Score, 42 versus 32.
What is the main difference between GDXY and GPTY?
GPTY holds 96 positions to GDXY's 13, and 3% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | GDXY | GPTY |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 1% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 13 | 96 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 75.39% | 39.32% |
| Average volume | 719,195 | 58,392 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -45.6% | -15.9% |
| YTD return | -39.1% | -6.2% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 42.2% | 28.2% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -50% | -29.8% |
| Beta | 1.61 | 1.80 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.18 | -0.61 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.53 | -0.93 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 42/100 | 32/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 1/10 |
| Momentum | 35/100 | 24/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 27/100 | 34/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
YieldMax Gold Miners Option Income Strategy ETF vs YieldMax AI & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF
GDXY leads
GDXY leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from GPTY.
Fragile: 1 of 3 evidence groups support GDXY, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
YieldMax Gold Miners Option Income Strategy ETF
YieldMax AI & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GDXY over GPTY, 42 versus 32 as of Oct 21, 2026. GDXY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while GPTY holds the stronger risk resilience profile. GDXY also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor GDXY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 1 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. GDXY lead: Reversed — GPTY led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GDXY now leads by 10.
Compare YieldMax Gold Miners Option Income Strategy ETF and YieldMax AI & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
GDXY vs GPTY: 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 | GDXY | GPTY | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 1% | 1.06% | GDXY |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 13 | 96 | GPTY |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 75.39% | 39.32% | GDXY |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -50% | -29.8% | GPTY |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 42.2% | 28.2% | GPTY |
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 GDXY and GPTY 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.
- Quality56 vs 34GDXY +22
- Momentum35 vs 24GDXY +11
- Risk Resilience27 vs 34GPTY +7
1 of 3 evidence groups favor GDXY. GDXY’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; GPTY keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
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.
Largest factor move: Value -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.
GDXY's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GDXY and GPTY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GDXY (YieldMax Gold Miners Option Income Strategy ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
GPTY (YieldMax AI & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience, 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 | GDXY | GPTY | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 1% | 1.06% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 13 | 96 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 719,195 | 58,392 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 42.2% | 28.2% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -50% | -29.8% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.18 | -0.61 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.61 | 1.80 | 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
GDXY and GPTY share 3.01% of their weighted exposure across 2 common holdings.
4 holdings are unique to GDXY, and 25 holdings are unique to GPTY. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | GDXY | GPTY | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States Treasury Bill 12/10/2026 | 16.77% | 2.68% | 2.68% |
| First American Government Obligations Fund 12/01/2031 | 2.06% | 0.34% | 0.34% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What GDXY adds that GPTY doesn’t
| Holding | GDXY | GPTY |
|---|---|---|
| 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% | 2.68% |
| United States Treasury Bill 10/15/2026 | 15.59% | Not held |
| First American Government Obligations Fund 12/01/2031 | 2.06% | 0.34% |
What GPTY adds that GDXY doesn’t
| Holding | GPTY | GDXY |
|---|---|---|
| SNOWSnowflake Inc | 6.4% | Not held |
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 6.31% | Not held |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 5.13% | Not held |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 4.53% | Not held |
| AAPLApple Inc | 4.5% | Not held |
| PLTRPalantir Technologies Inc | 4.5% | 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 GDXY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GDXY | 42 vs 32 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | GPTY | Price vs 50-day -9% vs -5.5%; vs 200-day -24.1% vs -5.3% |
| Risk Resilience | GPTY | Risk Resilience 27 vs 34 |
| 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 GDXY and GPTY 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 10 points.
- Only 1 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 GDXY.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20GDXY lead: Reversed — GPTY led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GDXY now leads by 10.
- Today
- GDXY +10
- 42 vs 32
- 7 sessions ago
- GDXY +8
- 40 vs 32
- 30 sessions ago
- GPTY +4
- 38 vs 42
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Oct 8 when GDXY moved ahead of GPTY.
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only GDXY
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (19.46%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only GPTY
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.89%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze.
GDXY 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 +0.41%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.65%, 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.
- 1GPTY closes the Quality gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to GDXY's edge.
- 2GPTY's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3GDXY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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.
Performance
GPTY leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | GDXY | GPTY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.1% | -6.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -12.2% | -10.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2% | -5.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -29% | -4% |
| Year to date | -39.1% | -6.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -45.6% | -15.9% |
Technicals
GPTY has the stronger structure| Metric | GDXY | GPTY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 42.1 | 29.9 |
| ADX (14) | 23.5 | 19.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9% | -5.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -24.1% | -5.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 33.4% | 24.2% |
Risk
GPTY is the more resilient| Metric | GDXY | GPTY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.61 | 1.8 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.18 | -0.61 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.53 | -0.93 |
| Max drawdown | -50% | -29.8% |
| Current drawdown | -48.1% | -21.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 42.2% | 28.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.9% | -2.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between GDXY and GPTY?
GPTY holds 96 positions to GDXY's 13, and 3% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do GDXY and GPTY overlap?
GDXY and GPTY share 3.01% of their weighted exposure across 2 common holdings. 4 holdings are unique to GDXY, and 25 holdings are unique to GPTY. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, GDXY or GPTY?
GPTY holds more positions: 96 versus 13 for GDXY.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
GDXY has the lower expense ratio, 1% a year against 1.06% for GPTY.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
GDXY, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 75.39% against 39.32% for GPTY.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
GDXY has been more volatile over the past year, at 42.2% annualized against 28.2% for GPTY.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
GPTY fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -29.8% against -50% for GDXY.
Compare GDXY and GPTY 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.