JPIE vs MINT: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
JPIE and MINT are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. JPIE is JPMorgan Income ETF, while MINT is PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active Exchange-Traded Fund. JPIE is broader by holdings count, with 2,747 positions versus 1,017 for MINT. JPIE is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has MINT ahead on AIQ Score, 53 versus 51.
What is the main difference between JPIE and MINT?
JPIE and MINT have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | JPIE | MINT |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.4% | 0.36% |
| Holdings | 2,747 | 1,017 |
| Top-10 concentration | 21.4% | 12.5% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 5.7% | 4.09% |
| Average volume | 1,657,244 | 1,768,362 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -3.1% | +0.1% |
| YTD return | -3% | +0.2% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +3.1% | +3.8% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 2.4% | 1.1% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -4% | -0.6% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -10% | -2.3% |
| Beta | 0.07 | 0.00 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.95 | -3.39 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.17 | -2.68 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 51/100 | 53/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 5/10 |
| Momentum | 44/100 | 41/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 77/100 | 66/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
JPMorgan Income ETF vs PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active Exchange-Traded Fund
MINT leads
MINT leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 11 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support MINT, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
JPMorgan Income ETF
PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active Exchange-Traded Fund
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MINT over JPIE, 53 versus 51 as of Oct 21, 2026. MINT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while JPIE holds the stronger risk resilience profile. MINT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor MINT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. MINT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare JPMorgan Income ETF and PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active Exchange-Traded Fund across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
JPIE vs MINT: 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 | JPIE | MINT | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.4% | 0.36% | MINT |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 2,747 | 1,017 | JPIE |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 21.4% | 12.5% | MINT |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 5.7% | 4.09% | JPIE |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -10% | -2.3% | MINT |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 2.4% | 1.1% | MINT |
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 JPIE and MINT 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 Resilience77 vs 66JPIE +11
- Value36 vs 45MINT +9
- Quality59 vs 63MINT +4
- Momentum44 vs 41Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor MINT. MINT’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; JPIE keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 +5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
MINT's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — JPIE and MINT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MINT (PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active Exchange-Traded Fund): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
JPIE (JPMorgan Income ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
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 | JPIE | MINT | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.4% | 0.36% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 2,747 | 1,017 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,657,244 | 1,768,362 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 2.4% | 1.1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -4% | -0.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.95 | -3.39 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.07 | 0.00 | 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
JPIE and MINT share 0.04% of their weighted exposure across 3 common holdings.
2,553 holdings are unique to JPIE, and 1,009 holdings are unique to MINT. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
JPIE is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 21.43% of the fund, against 12.53% for MINT (2,747 holdings vs 1,017). 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 | JPIE | MINT | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| WELLS FARGO + COMPANY SR UNSECURED 04/28 VAR 5.71% 04/22/2028 | 0.03% | 0.16% | 0.03% |
| DRYDEN SENIOR LOAN FUND DRSLF 2018 64A A 144A 4.96% 04/18/2031 | 0% | 0.01% | 0% |
| AERCAP IRELAND CAP/GLOBA COMPANY GUAR 01/27 6.1 6.10% 01/15/2027 | 0% | 0.08% | 0% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What JPIE adds that MINT doesn’t
| Holding | JPIE | MINT |
|---|---|---|
| TBA UMBS SINGLE FAMILY 5% | 4.34% | Not held |
| TBA UMBS SINGLE 5.5% | 3.83% | Not held |
| TBA GNMA2 SINGLE 6.5% | 2.69% | Not held |
| JPMORGAN PRIME MONEY | 2.22% | Not held |
| TBA GNMA2 SINGLE 4.5% | 2.04% | Not held |
| GNMA II MORTPASS 6% 06/56 | 1.53% | Not held |
What MINT adds that JPIE doesn’t
| Holding | MINT | JPIE |
|---|---|---|
| US TREASURY N/B 06/31 4.125 4.13% 06/30/2031 | 5.76% | Not held |
| FANNIE MAE FNR 2025 18 FM 4.54% 09/25/2054 | 1% | Not held |
| FREDDIE MAC FHR 5513 MF 4.58% 11/25/2054 | 0.88% | Not held |
| SYNCHRONY BANK SR UNSECURED 08/27 5.625 5.63% 08/23/2027 | 0.79% | Not held |
| AT+T INC SR UNSECURED 08/28 VAR 4.30% 08/10/2028 | 0.74% | Not held |
| HSBC HOLDINGS PLC SR UNSECURED 06/28 VAR 4.76% 06/09/2028 | 0.73% | 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 4 covered evidence groups favor MINT. 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 | 51 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | MINT | Value 36 vs 45 |
| Technicals | MINT | Price vs 50-day -1% vs 0%; vs 200-day -2.2% vs 0% |
| Risk Resilience | JPIE | Risk Resilience 77 vs 66 |
| 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 JPIE and MINT 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 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 MINT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20MINT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MINT +2
- 51 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- MINT +1
- 49 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- MINT +11
- 46 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- MINT +1
- 55 vs 56
The lead changed hands 13 times in this window, most recently on Sep 6 when MINT moved ahead of JPIE.
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 / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only JPIE
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.25%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only MINT
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.01%)
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.3%)
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Contraction - Coiling, 52-Week Low Proximity, MACD Bullish Crossover.
MINT 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 -0.02%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.04%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1JPIE closes the Value gap — currently 9 points behind, the largest single contributor to MINT's edge.
- 2JPIE's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3MINT'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 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate MINT'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
MINT leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | JPIE | MINT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.3% | 0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.9% | -0.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2% | -0.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -2.7% | 0% |
| Year to date | -3% | 0.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.1% | 0.1% |
Technicals
MINT has the stronger structure| Metric | JPIE | MINT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52.3 | 49.2 |
| ADX (14) | 48 | 18.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1% | 0% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.2% | 0% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 2.9% | 1.2% |
Risk
JPIE is the more resilient| Metric | JPIE | MINT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.07 | 0 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.95 | -3.39 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.17 | -2.68 |
| Max drawdown | -4% | -0.6% |
| Current drawdown | -3.5% | -0.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 2.4% | 1.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -0.3% | -0.1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between JPIE and MINT?
JPIE and MINT have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do JPIE and MINT overlap?
JPIE and MINT share 0.04% of their weighted exposure across 3 common holdings. 2,553 holdings are unique to JPIE, and 1,009 holdings are unique to MINT. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, JPIE or MINT?
JPIE holds more positions: 2,747 versus 1,017 for MINT.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
MINT has the lower expense ratio, 0.36% a year against 0.4% for JPIE.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
JPIE, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 5.7% against 4.09% for MINT.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
JPIE has been more volatile over the past year, at 2.4% annualized against 1.1% for MINT.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
MINT fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -2.3% against -10% for JPIE.
Compare JPIE and MINT 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.