GPTY vs VOO: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
GPTY and VOO are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. GPTY is YieldMax AI & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF, while VOO is Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. VOO is broader by holdings count, with 508 positions versus 96 for GPTY. GPTY is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VOO ahead on AIQ Score, 64 versus 32.
What is the main difference between GPTY and VOO?
GPTY puts 78% of its assets in Technology, while VOO spreads across 11 sectors with none above 39%.
| Metric | GPTY | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 1.06% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 96 | 508 |
| Top-10 concentration | 48.5% | 37.6% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 39.32% | 1.05% |
| Average volume | 58,392 | 7,814,237 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -15.9% | +16.4% |
| YTD return | -6.2% | +12.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 28.2% | 12.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -29.8% | -9.2% |
| Beta | 1.80 | 1.00 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.61 | 0.91 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.93 | 1.38 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 32/100 | 64/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 1/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 24/100 | 64/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 34/100 | 87/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
YieldMax AI & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF vs Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO leads
VOO leads by 32 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, and the lead has widened from 22 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 4 evidence groups support VOO, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
YieldMax AI & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VOO over GPTY, 64 versus 32 as of Oct 21, 2026. VOO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. VOO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VOO today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. VOO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 32 points over 30 sessions. VOO leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare YieldMax AI & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
GPTY vs VOO: 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 | GPTY | VOO | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 1.06% | 0.03% | VOO |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 96 | 508 | VOO |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 48.5% | 37.6% | VOO |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 39.32% | 1.05% | GPTY |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -29.8% | -9.2% | VOO |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 28.2% | 12.8% | VOO |
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 GPTY and VOO 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 Resilience34 vs 87VOO +53
- Quality34 vs 77VOO +43
- Momentum24 vs 64VOO +40
- Value36 vs 41VOO +5
4 of 4 evidence groups favor VOO. VOO’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
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.
Largest factor move: Momentum +17
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
VOO's lead widened by 4 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GPTY and VOO 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 | GPTY | VOO | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 1.06% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 96 | 508 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 58,392 | 7,814,237 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 28.2% | 12.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -29.8% | -9.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.61 | 0.91 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.80 | 1.00 | 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
GPTY and VOO share 32.92% of their weighted exposure across 18 common holdings.
9 holdings are unique to GPTY, and 487 holdings are unique to VOO. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
GPTY is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 48.5% of the fund, against 37.65% for VOO (96 holdings vs 508). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | GPTY | VOO | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 6.31% | 7.55% | 6.31% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 4.53% | 5.36% | 4.53% |
| AAPLApple Inc | 4.5% | 7.05% | 4.5% |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 4.04% | 4.13% | 4.04% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 5.13% | 3.24% | 3.24% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 3.57% | 2.86% | 2.86% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 4.14% | 1.9% | 1.9% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 3.04% | 1.36% | 1.36% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What GPTY adds that VOO doesn’t
| Holding | GPTY | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| SNOWSnowflake Inc | 6.4% | Not held |
| PLTRPalantir Technologies Inc | 4.5% | 0.44% |
| IBMInternational Business Machines Corp | 4.45% | 0.33% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 4.33% | 1.21% |
| INTCIntel Corp | 4.2% | 0.66% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 4.14% | 1.9% |
What VOO adds that GPTY doesn’t
| Holding | VOO | GPTY |
|---|---|---|
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.62% | Not held |
| JPMJPMorgan Chase & Co | 1.46% | Not held |
| BRK-BBerkshire Hathaway Inc | 1.46% | Not held |
| MUMicron Technology Inc | 1.44% | Not held |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co | 1.41% | Not held |
| XOMExxonMobil Holdings Corp | 1% | 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.
GPTY vs VOO: five-year payout growth
VOO grew its split-adjusted payout at 5.91% a year over 2020-2025. GPTY began paying distributions in 2025, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | GPTY | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $14.514 | $7.068 |
| Peer rank | not ranked | #88 of 138 |
Split-adjusted annual distributions, 2020–2025. Research as of Sep 19, 2026. Yield and expense ratio above are current values, not part of this window.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VOO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VOO | 32 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | VOO | Value 36 vs 41 |
| Technicals | VOO | Price vs 50-day -5.5% vs 0.6%; vs 200-day -5.3% vs 5.9% |
| Risk Resilience | VOO | Risk Resilience 34 vs 87 |
| 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 GPTY and VOO and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 32 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (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 VOO.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20VOO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 32 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VOO +32
- 32 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- VOO +31
- 32 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- VOO +22
- 42 vs 64
- 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.
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only GPTY
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only VOO
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.93%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.2%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
VOO 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 +0.65%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.55%, AIQ +4 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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 53 points behind, the largest single contributor to VOO's edge.
- 2GPTY's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3VOO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 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
VOO leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | GPTY | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.3% | -1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -10.1% | -0.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -5.2% | 2.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -4% | 9.2% |
| Year to date | -6.2% | 12.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -15.9% | 16.4% |
Technicals
VOO has the stronger structure| Metric | GPTY | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 29.9 | 56.2 |
| ADX (14) | 19.9 | 12.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.5% | 0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -5.3% | 5.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 24.2% | 9.4% |
Risk
VOO is the more resilient| Metric | GPTY | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.8 | 1 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.61 | 0.91 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.93 | 1.38 |
| Max drawdown | -29.8% | -9.2% |
| Current drawdown | -21.4% | -1.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.2% | 12.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.9% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between GPTY and VOO?
GPTY puts 78% of its assets in Technology, while VOO spreads across 11 sectors with none above 39%.
How much do GPTY and VOO overlap?
GPTY and VOO share 32.92% of their weighted exposure across 18 common holdings. 9 holdings are unique to GPTY, and 487 holdings are unique to VOO. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, GPTY or VOO?
VOO holds more positions: 508 versus 96 for GPTY.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VOO has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 1.06% for GPTY.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
GPTY, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 39.32% against 1.05% for VOO.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
GPTY has been more volatile over the past year, at 28.2% annualized against 12.8% for VOO.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
VOO fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -9.2% against -29.8% for GPTY.
Compare GPTY and VOO 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.