GDXY vs NVDY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
GDXY and NVDY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. GDXY is YieldMax Gold Miners Option Income Strategy ETF, while NVDY is YieldMax NVDA Option Income Strategy ETF. GDXY has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has NVDY ahead on AIQ Score, 46 versus 42.
| Metric | GDXY | NVDY |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 1% | 1.09% |
| Holdings | 13 | 15 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 75.39% | 53.28% |
| Average volume | 719,195 | 2,081,681 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -45.6% | -24.1% |
| YTD return | -39.1% | -19% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 42.2% | 31.3% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -50% | -32.7% |
| Beta | 1.61 | 1.59 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.18 | -0.88 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.53 | -1.33 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 42/100 | 46/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 3/10 |
| Momentum | 35/100 | 25/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 27/100 | 61/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
YieldMax Gold Miners Option Income Strategy ETF vs YieldMax NVDA Option Income Strategy ETF
NVDY leads
NVDY leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 18 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 3 evidence groups support NVDY, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
YieldMax Gold Miners Option Income Strategy ETF
YieldMax NVDA Option Income Strategy ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NVDY over GDXY, 46 versus 42 as of Oct 21, 2026. NVDY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience, while GDXY holds the stronger momentum profile. NVDY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor NVDY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. NVDY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare YieldMax Gold Miners Option Income Strategy ETF and YieldMax NVDA Option Income Strategy ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
GDXY vs NVDY: 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 | NVDY | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 1% | 1.09% | GDXY |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 13 | 15 | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 75.39% | 53.28% | GDXY |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -50% | -32.7% | NVDY |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 42.2% | 31.3% | NVDY |
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 NVDY 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 Resilience27 vs 61NVDY +34
- Momentum35 vs 25GDXY +10
- Quality56 vs 55Even
3 of 3 evidence groups favor NVDY. NVDY’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience; GDXY keeps a meaningful momentum 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.
No factor moved materially.
New signals
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
NVDY's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GDXY and NVDY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
NVDY (YieldMax NVDA Option Income Strategy ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience.
GDXY (YieldMax Gold Miners Option Income Strategy ETF): the counter-case, on momentum — but at materially higher volatility, 33.4% against 21.2%.
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 | NVDY | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 1% | 1.09% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 13 | 15 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 719,195 | 2,081,681 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 42.2% | 31.3% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -50% | -32.7% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.18 | -0.88 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.61 | 1.59 | 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 NVDY share 80.66% of their weighted exposure across 6 common holdings.
Every holding is in both funds. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | GDXY | NVDY | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States Treasury Bill 02/18/2027 | 17.14% | 16.09% | 16.09% |
| United States Treasury Bill 07/08/2027 | 18.21% | 15.9% | 15.9% |
| United States Treasury Bill 12/10/2026 | 16.77% | 15.84% | 15.84% |
| United States Treasury Bill 10/15/2026 | 15.59% | 17.03% | 15.59% |
| United States Treasury Note/Bond 2.375% 05/15/2027 | 18.63% | 15.18% | 15.18% |
| First American Government Obligations Fund 12/01/2031 | 2.06% | 2.25% | 2.06% |
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 NVDY doesn’t
GDXY has no position of 0.01% or more that NVDY lacks or holds at under half the weight.
What NVDY adds that GDXY doesn’t
NVDY has no position of 0.01% or more that GDXY lacks or holds at under half the weight.
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
3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor NVDY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | NVDY | 42 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | NVDY | Price vs 50-day -9% vs -4.1%; vs 200-day -24.1% vs -10.8% |
| Risk Resilience | NVDY | Risk Resilience 27 vs 61 |
| 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 NVDY 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 3 of 3 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (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 NVDY.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20NVDY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- NVDY +4
- 42 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- NVDY +6
- 40 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- NVDY +18
- 38 vs 56
- 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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only NVDY
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.9%)
- 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.
NVDY 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 +2.03%, 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.
- 1GDXY closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to NVDY's edge.
- 2GDXY's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3NVDY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 5 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 14 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate NVDY's advantage entirely.
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
NVDY leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | GDXY | NVDY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.1% | -5.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -12.2% | -7.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2% | -7.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -29% | -15% |
| Year to date | -39.1% | -19% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -45.6% | -24.1% |
Technicals
NVDY has the stronger structure| Metric | GDXY | NVDY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 42.1 | 28.4 |
| ADX (14) | 23.5 | 19.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9% | -4.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -24.1% | -10.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 33.4% | 21.2% |
Risk
NVDY is the more resilient| Metric | GDXY | NVDY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.61 | 1.59 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.18 | -0.88 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.53 | -1.33 |
| Max drawdown | -50% | -32.7% |
| Current drawdown | -48.1% | -31.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 42.2% | 31.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.9% | -3.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
How much do GDXY and NVDY overlap?
GDXY and NVDY share 80.66% of their weighted exposure across 6 common holdings. Every holding is in both funds. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
Which ETF is more diversified, GDXY or NVDY?
They hold a similar number of positions: 13 for GDXY and 15 for NVDY.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
GDXY has the lower expense ratio, 1% a year against 1.09% for NVDY.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
GDXY, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 75.39% against 53.28% for NVDY.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
GDXY has been more volatile over the past year, at 42.2% annualized against 31.3% for NVDY.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
NVDY fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -32.7% against -50% for GDXY.
Compare GDXY and NVDY 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.