PDBA vs PICK: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
PDBA and PICK are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. PDBA is Invesco Agriculture Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF, while PICK is iShares MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF. PICK is broader by holdings count, with 284 positions versus 3 for PDBA. PICK has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has PDBA ahead on AIQ Score, 53 versus 52.
What is the main difference between PDBA and PICK?
PICK holds 284 positions to PDBA's 3, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | PDBA | PICK |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.75% | 0.39% |
| Holdings | 3 | 284 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 3% | 2.28% |
| Average volume | 232,293 | 746,524 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +5.9% | +25.7% |
| YTD return | +10.7% | +12.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 11.5% | 31.4% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.6% | -19.5% |
| Beta | 0.04 | 1.65 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.27 | 0.80 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.40 | 1.13 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 53/100 | 52/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 5/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 49/100 | 31/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 66/100 | 66/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco Agriculture Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF vs iShares MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF
PDBA leads
PDBA leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum.
Fragile: 1 of 3 evidence groups support PDBA, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Invesco Agriculture Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF
iShares MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PDBA over PICK, 53 versus 52 as of Oct 21, 2026. PDBA's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while PICK holds the stronger quality profile. PDBA also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor PDBA today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. PDBA lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Invesco Agriculture Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF and iShares MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
PDBA vs PICK: 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 | PICK | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.75% | 0.39% | PICK |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 3 | 284 | PICK |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 3% | 2.28% | PDBA |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -8.6% | -19.5% | PDBA |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 11.5% | 31.4% | 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 PICK 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 31PDBA +18
- Quality51 vs 62PICK +11
- Risk Resilience66 vs 66Even
1 of 3 evidence groups favor PDBA. PDBA’s edge is concentrated in momentum; PICK keeps a meaningful quality 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 +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 3 active signals are unchanged.
PDBA's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PDBA and PICK both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PDBA (Invesco Agriculture Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
PICK (iShares MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF): the counter-case, on quality — but at materially higher volatility, 19.7% against 8.9%.
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 | PICK | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.75% | 0.39% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 3 | 284 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 232,293 | 746,524 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 11.5% | 31.4% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.6% | -19.5% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.27 | 0.80 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.04 | 1.65 | 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 PICK share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
2 holdings are unique to PDBA, and 248 holdings are unique to PICK. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
What PDBA adds that PICK doesn’t
| Holding | PDBA | PICK |
|---|---|---|
| Invesco Premier US Government Money Portfolio | 79.75% | Not held |
| POWERSHARES CAYMAN FUND | 20.17% | Not held |
What PICK adds that PDBA doesn’t
| Holding | PICK | PDBA |
|---|---|---|
| BHP.AXBHP GROUP LTD | 13.43% | Not held |
| RIO.LRIO TINTO PLC | 6.23% | Not held |
| FCXFREEPORT MCMORAN INC | 6.2% | Not held |
| GLEN.LGLENCORE PLC | 4.51% | Not held |
| AAL.LANGLO AMERICAN PLC | 3.4% | Not held |
| NUENUCOR | 3.24% | 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
1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor PDBA. 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 | 53 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | PDBA | Price vs 50-day -1.4% vs -7.7%; vs 200-day 3.3% vs -4.3% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 66 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 PDBA and PICK 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. (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 PDBA.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20PDBA lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PDBA +1
- 53 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 51 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 48 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- PICK +9
- 59 vs 68
The lead changed hands 12 times in this window, most recently on Oct 13 when PICK 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
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.84%)
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only PICK
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
PDBA 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 -0.29%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.64%, 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.
- 1PICK closes the Momentum gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to PDBA's edge.
- 2PICK's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3PDBA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
PDBA leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | PDBA | PICK |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.8% | -3.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.2% | -7.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.2% | -1.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.9% | -6% |
| Year to date | 10.7% | 12.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 5.9% | 25.7% |
Technicals
PDBA has the stronger structure| Metric | PDBA | PICK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 51.5 | 37.8 |
| ADX (14) | 14.1 | 21.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.4% | -7.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.3% | -4.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 8.9% | 19.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | PDBA | PICK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.04 | 1.65 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.27 | 0.8 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.4 | 1.13 |
| Max drawdown | -8.6% | -19.5% |
| Current drawdown | -4.4% | -16.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 11.5% | 31.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.2% | -3% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between PDBA and PICK?
PICK holds 284 positions to PDBA's 3, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do PDBA and PICK overlap?
PDBA and PICK share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 2 holdings are unique to PDBA, and 248 holdings are unique to PICK. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, PDBA or PICK?
PICK holds more positions: 284 versus 3 for PDBA.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
PICK has the lower expense ratio, 0.39% a year against 0.75% for PDBA.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
PDBA, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 3% against 2.28% for PICK.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
PICK has been more volatile over the past year, at 31.4% 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 -19.5% for PICK.
Compare PDBA and PICK 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.