GPIX vs IWMI: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
GPIX and IWMI are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. GPIX is Goldman Sachs S&P 500 Premium Income ETF, while IWMI is NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF. GPIX is broader by holdings count, with 496 positions versus 4 for IWMI. GPIX has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has GPIX ahead on AIQ Score, 62 versus 52.
What is the main difference between GPIX and IWMI?
GPIX holds 496 positions to IWMI's 4, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | GPIX | IWMI |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.76% |
| Holdings | 496 | 4 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 8.2% | 14.86% |
| Average volume | 1,096,726 | 423,424 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +8.5% | -0.4% |
| YTD return | +6% | +0.3% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 11.2% | 15.4% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.9% | -10.6% |
| Beta | 0.86 | 0.97 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.39 | -0.18 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.60 | -0.28 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 62/100 | 52/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 50/100 | 41/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 84/100 | 81/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Goldman Sachs S&P 500 Premium Income ETF vs NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF
GPIX leads
GPIX leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 20 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 3 evidence groups support GPIX, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Goldman Sachs S&P 500 Premium Income ETF
NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GPIX over IWMI, 62 versus 52 as of Oct 21, 2026. GPIX's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. GPIX also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor GPIX today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. GPIX lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Goldman Sachs S&P 500 Premium Income ETF and NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
GPIX vs IWMI: 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 | GPIX | IWMI | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.35% | 0.76% | GPIX |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 496 | 4 | GPIX |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 8.2% | 14.86% | IWMI |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -8.9% | -10.6% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 11.2% | 15.4% | GPIX |
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 GPIX and IWMI 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.
- Quality62 vs 44GPIX +18
- Momentum50 vs 41GPIX +9
- Risk Resilience84 vs 81Even
2 of 3 evidence groups favor GPIX. GPIX’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
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 +3, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +9
New signals
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.16%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
GPIX's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GPIX and IWMI 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 | GPIX | IWMI | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.76% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 496 | 4 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,096,726 | 423,424 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 11.2% | 15.4% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.9% | -10.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.39 | -0.18 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.86 | 0.97 | 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
GPIX and IWMI share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
490 holdings are unique to GPIX, and 3 holdings are unique to IWMI. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
What GPIX adds that IWMI doesn’t
| Holding | GPIX | IWMI |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA CORPORATION | 8.1% | Not held |
| AAPLAPPLE INC. | 7.38% | Not held |
| MSFTMICROSOFT CORPORATION | 5.48% | Not held |
| AMZNAMAZON.COM INC | 3.82% | Not held |
| XLCSTATE STREET COMMUNICATION SERVICES SELECT SECTOR | 3.52% | Not held |
| GOOGLALPHABET INC. | 3.23% | Not held |
What IWMI adds that GPIX doesn’t
| Holding | IWMI | GPIX |
|---|---|---|
| VTWOVanguard Russell 2000 ETF | 98.67% | Not held |
| RUT 261016C03005000RUT US 10/16/26 C3005 | 0.23% | Not held |
| RUT 261016C03050000RUT US 10/16/26 C3050 | 0.12% | 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
2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor GPIX. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GPIX | 62 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | GPIX | Price vs 50-day 0.3% vs -4.7%; vs 200-day 3.3% vs -4% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 84 vs 81 |
| 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 GPIX and IWMI 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.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 GPIX.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20GPIX lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GPIX +10
- 62 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- GPIX +15
- 65 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- GPIX +20
- 68 vs 48
- 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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 3 neutral, conflicted
Only GPIX
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.36%)
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.1%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only IWMI
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.16%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, ATR Contraction - Coiling.
GPIX 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 +0.43%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.89%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1IWMI closes the Quality gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to GPIX's edge.
- 2IWMI's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3GPIX's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 10-point move would eliminate GPIX'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
GPIX leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | GPIX | IWMI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.8% | -0.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.8% | -3.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.2% | -6.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.2% | -4.5% |
| Year to date | 6% | 0.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 8.5% | -0.4% |
Technicals
GPIX has the stronger structure| Metric | GPIX | IWMI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52 | 48.6 |
| ADX (14) | 12.5 | 41 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.3% | -4.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.3% | -4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 7.6% | 13.3% |
Risk
Split| Metric | GPIX | IWMI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.86 | 0.97 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.39 | -0.18 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.6 | -0.28 |
| Max drawdown | -8.9% | -10.6% |
| Current drawdown | -1.3% | -9% |
| Annualized volatility | 11.2% | 15.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.3% | -1.7% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between GPIX and IWMI?
GPIX holds 496 positions to IWMI's 4, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do GPIX and IWMI overlap?
GPIX and IWMI share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 490 holdings are unique to GPIX, and 3 holdings are unique to IWMI. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, GPIX or IWMI?
GPIX holds more positions: 496 versus 4 for IWMI.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
GPIX has the lower expense ratio, 0.35% a year against 0.76% for IWMI.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
IWMI, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 14.86% against 8.2% for GPIX.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
IWMI has been more volatile over the past year, at 15.4% annualized against 11.2% for GPIX.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past year are similar: -8.9% for GPIX and -10.6% for IWMI.
Compare GPIX and IWMI 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.