GDXY vs HOOY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
GDXY and HOOY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. GDXY is YieldMax Gold Miners Option Income Strategy ETF, while HOOY is YieldMax HOOD Option Income Strategy ETF. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has GDXY ahead on AIQ Score, 42 versus 26.
| Metric | GDXY | HOOY |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 1% | 0.99% |
| Holdings | 13 | 14 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 75.39% | 116.93% |
| Average volume | 719,195 | 140,299 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -45.6% | -64.1% |
| YTD return | -39.1% | -49% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 42.2% | 60.5% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -50% | -66.8% |
| Beta | 1.61 | 2.71 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.18 | -1.45 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.53 | -2.19 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 42/100 | 26/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 1/10 |
| Momentum | 35/100 | 24/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 27/100 | 9/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
YieldMax Gold Miners Option Income Strategy ETF vs YieldMax HOOD Option Income Strategy ETF
GDXY leads
GDXY leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 2 of 3 evidence groups support GDXY, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
YieldMax Gold Miners Option Income Strategy ETF
YieldMax HOOD Option Income Strategy ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GDXY over HOOY, 42 versus 26 as of Oct 21, 2026. GDXY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. GDXY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor GDXY today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. GDXY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
Compare YieldMax Gold Miners Option Income Strategy ETF and YieldMax HOOD Option Income Strategy ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
GDXY vs HOOY: 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 | HOOY | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 1% | 0.99% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 13 | 14 | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 75.39% | 116.93% | HOOY |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -50% | -66.8% | GDXY |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 42.2% | 60.5% | GDXY |
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 HOOY 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 37GDXY +19
- Risk Resilience27 vs 9GDXY +18
- Momentum35 vs 24GDXY +11
2 of 3 evidence groups favor GDXY. GDXY’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
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.
No factor moved materially.
New signals
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.9%)
GDXY's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GDXY and HOOY 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 | GDXY | HOOY | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 1% | 0.99% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 13 | 14 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 719,195 | 140,299 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 42.2% | 60.5% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -50% | -66.8% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.18 | -1.45 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.61 | 2.71 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 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 26 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -9% vs -10.6%; vs 200-day -24.1% vs -23.7% |
| Risk Resilience | GDXY | Risk Resilience 27 vs 9 |
| 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 HOOY and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 16 points. (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 GDXY.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20GDXY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GDXY +16
- 42 vs 26
- 7 sessions ago
- GDXY +15
- 40 vs 25
- 30 sessions ago
- GDXY +4
- 38 vs 34
- 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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only GDXY
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 5 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only HOOY
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.29%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.9%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Death Cross Active, Downtrend Structure Active.
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 +3.47%, 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.
- 1HOOY closes the Quality gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to GDXY's edge.
- 2HOOY's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend 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
GDXY leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | GDXY | HOOY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.1% | -10.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -12.2% | -22% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2% | -21.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -29% | -28.3% |
| Year to date | -39.1% | -49% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -45.6% | -64.1% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | GDXY | HOOY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 42.1 | 25.6 |
| ADX (14) | 23.5 | 19.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9% | -10.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -24.1% | -23.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 33.4% | 38.1% |
Risk
GDXY is the more resilient| Metric | GDXY | HOOY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.61 | 2.71 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.18 | -1.45 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.53 | -2.19 |
| Max drawdown | -50% | -66.8% |
| Current drawdown | -48.1% | -66.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 42.2% | 60.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.9% | -6.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF is more diversified, GDXY or HOOY?
They hold a similar number of positions: 13 for GDXY and 14 for HOOY.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
The two are within a basis point: 1% for GDXY and 0.99% for HOOY.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
HOOY, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 116.93% against 75.39% for GDXY.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
HOOY has been more volatile over the past year, at 60.5% annualized against 42.2% for GDXY.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
GDXY fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -50% against -66.8% for HOOY.
Compare GDXY and HOOY 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.