PDBA vs PDBC: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
PDBA and PDBC are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. PDBA is Invesco Agriculture Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF, while PDBC is Invesco Optimum Yield Diversified Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has PDBC ahead on AIQ Score, 75 versus 53.
What is the main difference between PDBA and PDBC?
PDBA and PDBC hold essentially the same portfolio: 96% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | PDBA | PDBC |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.75% | 0.74% |
| Holdings | 3 | 3 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 3% | 2.54% |
| Average volume | 232,293 | 6,428,418 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +5.9% | +51.8% |
| YTD return | +10.7% | +51.1% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 11.5% | 20.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.6% | -16.6% |
| Beta | 0.04 | -0.40 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.27 | 1.93 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.40 | 2.96 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 53/100 | 75/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 5/10 | 10/10 |
| Momentum | 49/100 | 77/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 66/100 | 78/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco Agriculture Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF vs Invesco Optimum Yield Diversified Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF
PDBC leads
PDBC leads by 22 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 18 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 3 of 3 evidence groups support PDBC, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Invesco Agriculture Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF
Invesco Optimum Yield Diversified Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PDBC over PDBA, 75 versus 53 as of Oct 21, 2026. PDBC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. PDBC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor PDBC today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. PDBC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 22 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Invesco Agriculture Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF and Invesco Optimum Yield Diversified Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
PDBA vs PDBC: 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 | PDBA | PDBC | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.75% | 0.74% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 3 | 3 | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 3% | 2.54% | PDBA |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -8.6% | -16.6% | PDBA |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 11.5% | 20.8% | PDBA |
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 PDBA and PDBC 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.
- Momentum49 vs 77PDBC +28
- Quality51 vs 72PDBC +21
- Risk Resilience66 vs 78PDBC +12
3 of 3 evidence groups favor PDBC. PDBC’s edge is concentrated in momentum 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: Momentum +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
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 7 active signals are unchanged.
PDBC's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PDBA and PDBC 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 | PDBA | PDBC | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.75% | 0.74% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 3 | 3 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 232,293 | 6,428,418 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 11.5% | 20.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.6% | -16.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.27 | 1.93 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.04 | -0.40 | 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
PDBA and PDBC share 95.67% of their weighted exposure across 2 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 | PDBA | PDBC | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| Invesco Premier US Government Money Portfolio | 79.75% | 75.5% | 75.5% |
| POWERSHARES CAYMAN FUND | 20.17% | 24.42% | 20.17% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What PDBA adds that PDBC doesn’t
PDBA has no position of 0.01% or more that PDBC lacks or holds at under half the weight.
What PDBC adds that PDBA doesn’t
PDBC has no position of 0.01% or more that PDBA 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 PDBC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | PDBC | 53 vs 75 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | PDBC | Price vs 50-day -1.4% vs 4.1%; vs 200-day 3.3% vs 16.6% |
| Risk Resilience | PDBC | Risk Resilience 66 vs 78 |
| 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 PDBA and PDBC 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 22 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 3 of 3 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 PDBC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20PDBC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 22 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PDBC +22
- 53 vs 75
- 7 sessions ago
- PDBC +21
- 51 vs 72
- 30 sessions ago
- PDBC +18
- 48 vs 66
- 90 sessions ago
- PDBC +15
- 59 vs 74
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 8 when PDBC moved ahead of PDBA.
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only PDBA
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
5 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only PDBC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.2%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling.
PDBA is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 -0.29%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.2%, 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.
- 1PDBA closes the Momentum gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to PDBC's edge.
- 2PDBA's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3PDBC's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
PDBC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | PDBA | PDBC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.8% | 0.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.2% | 3.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.2% | 12.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.9% | 15.1% |
| Year to date | 10.7% | 51.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 5.9% | 51.8% |
Technicals
PDBC has the stronger structure| Metric | PDBA | PDBC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 51.5 | 68.7 |
| ADX (14) | 14.1 | 22.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.4% | 4.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.3% | 16.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 8.9% | 15.4% |
Risk
PDBC is the more resilient| Metric | PDBA | PDBC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.04 | -0.4 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.27 | 1.93 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.4 | 2.96 |
| Max drawdown | -8.6% | -16.6% |
| Current drawdown | -4.4% | -0.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 11.5% | 20.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.2% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between PDBA and PDBC?
PDBA and PDBC hold essentially the same portfolio: 96% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do PDBA and PDBC overlap?
PDBA and PDBC share 95.67% of their weighted exposure across 2 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, PDBA or PDBC?
They hold a similar number of positions: 3 for PDBA and 3 for PDBC.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
The two are within a basis point: 0.75% for PDBA and 0.74% for PDBC.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
PDBA, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 3% against 2.54% for PDBC.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
PDBC has been more volatile over the past year, at 20.8% annualized against 11.5% for PDBA.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
PDBA fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -8.6% against -16.6% for PDBC.
Compare PDBA and PDBC 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.