IAUM vs PHYS: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
IAUM and PHYS are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IAUM is iShares Gold Trust Micro, while PHYS is Sprott Physical Gold Trust. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has PHYS ahead on AIQ Score, 58 versus 56.
| Metric | IAUM | PHYS |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -2.8% | -4% |
| YTD return | -4.5% | -5.8% |
| 5Y annualized returnPrice return, distributions excluded | +17.9% | +17% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 29.1% | 30.2% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -26.3% | -26.8% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Price return, distributions excluded | -26.3% | -26.8% |
| Beta | 0.80 | 0.83 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.08 | -0.09 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.10 | -0.11 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 56/100 | 58/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 7/10 |
| Momentum | 39/100 | 40/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 56/100 | 62/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Gold Trust Micro vs Sprott Physical Gold Trust
PHYS leads
PHYS leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience.
Fragile: 1 of 3 evidence groups support PHYS, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares Gold Trust Micro
Sprott Physical Gold Trust
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PHYS over IAUM, 58 versus 56 as of Oct 21, 2026. PHYS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience. PHYS also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor PHYS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. PHYS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares Gold Trust Micro and Sprott Physical Gold Trust across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
IAUM vs PHYS: 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 | IAUM | PHYS | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -26.3% | -26.8% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 29.1% | 30.2% | IAUM |
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
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare IAUM and PHYS 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 Resilience56 vs 62PHYS +6
- Quality70 vs 72Even
- Momentum39 vs 40Even
1 of 3 evidence groups favor PHYS. PHYS’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
New signals
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.49%)
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
PHYS's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IAUM and PHYS 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 | IAUM | PHYS | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annualized volatility | 29.1% | 30.2% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -26.3% | -26.8% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.08 | -0.09 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.80 | 0.83 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor PHYS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 56 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -4.4% vs -4.4%; vs 200-day -8.8% vs -9% |
| Risk Resilience | PHYS | Risk Resilience 56 vs 62 |
| 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 IAUM and PHYS 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 PHYS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20PHYS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PHYS +2
- 56 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- PHYS +2
- 54 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- PHYS +2
- 51 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- PHYS +2
- 68 vs 70
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 / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only IAUM
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.49%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Death Cross Active, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
PHYS 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 +0.32%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.39%, 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.
- 1IAUM closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 6 points behind, the largest single contributor to PHYS's edge.
- 2IAUM's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3PHYS'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.
Fundamentals
Split| Metric | IAUM | PHYS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | — | -100.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | — | 220.9% |
| Gross margin | — | 4.8% |
| Operating margin | — | 4.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | — | 16.4% |
| Debt to equity | — | 0 |
Performance
IAUM leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | IAUM | PHYS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1% | -1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.6% | -5.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.2% | -0.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -11.9% | -12.2% |
| Year to date | -4.5% | -5.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -2.8% | -4% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | IAUM | PHYS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46.3 | 47.9 |
| ADX (14) | 16.6 | 16.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.4% | -4.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -8.8% | -9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21% | 20.7% |
Risk
PHYS is the more resilient| Metric | IAUM | PHYS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.8 | 0.83 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.08 | -0.09 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.1 | -0.11 |
| Max drawdown | -26.3% | -26.8% |
| Current drawdown | -23.6% | -24% |
| Annualized volatility | 29.1% | 30.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.2% | -3.5% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
PHYS has been more volatile over the past year, at 30.2% annualized against 29.1% for IAUM.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -26.3% for IAUM and -26.8% for PHYS.
Compare IAUM and PHYS 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.