PDBA vs VXUS: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
PDBA and VXUS are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. PDBA is Invesco Agriculture Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF, while VXUS is Vanguard Total International Stock ETF. VXUS is broader by holdings count, with 8,821 positions versus 3 for PDBA. VXUS has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VXUS ahead on AIQ Score, 63 versus 53.
What is the main difference between PDBA and VXUS?
VXUS holds 8,821 positions to PDBA's 3, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | PDBA | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.75% | 0.05% |
| Holdings | 3 | 8,821 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 3% | 2.37% |
| Average volume | 232,293 | 5,459,776 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +5.9% | +12.8% |
| YTD return | +10.7% | +11% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 11.5% | 17.2% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.6% | -11.4% |
| Beta | 0.04 | 1.11 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.27 | 0.56 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.40 | 0.83 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 53/100 | 63/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 5/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 49/100 | 41/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 66/100 | 82/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco Agriculture Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF vs Vanguard Total International Stock ETF
VXUS leads
VXUS leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 14 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 3 evidence groups support VXUS, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Invesco Agriculture Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF
Vanguard Total International Stock ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VXUS over PDBA, 63 versus 53 as of Oct 21, 2026. VXUS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while PDBA holds the stronger momentum profile. VXUS also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor VXUS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. VXUS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Invesco Agriculture Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF and Vanguard Total International Stock ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
PDBA vs VXUS: 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 | VXUS | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.75% | 0.05% | VXUS |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 3 | 8,821 | VXUS |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 3% | 2.37% | PDBA |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -8.6% | -11.4% | PDBA |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 11.5% | 17.2% | 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 VXUS 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.
- Quality51 vs 76VXUS +25
- Risk Resilience66 vs 82VXUS +16
- Momentum49 vs 41PDBA +8
2 of 3 evidence groups favor VXUS. VXUS’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; PDBA keeps a meaningful momentum 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 +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
VXUS's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PDBA and VXUS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VXUS (Vanguard Total International Stock ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
PDBA (Invesco Agriculture Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals.
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 | VXUS | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.75% | 0.05% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 3 | 8,821 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 232,293 | 5,459,776 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 11.5% | 17.2% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.6% | -11.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.27 | 0.56 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.04 | 1.11 | 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 VXUS share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
2 holdings are unique to PDBA, and 8,281 holdings are unique to VXUS. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
What PDBA adds that VXUS doesn’t
| Holding | PDBA | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| Invesco Premier US Government Money Portfolio | 79.75% | Not held |
| POWERSHARES CAYMAN FUND | 20.17% | Not held |
What VXUS adds that PDBA doesn’t
| Holding | VXUS | PDBA |
|---|---|---|
| 2330.TWTaiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd | 4.02% | Not held |
| 005930.KSSamsung Electronics Co Ltd | 1.8% | Not held |
| ASML.ASASML Holding NV | 1.42% | Not held |
| 000660.KSSK hynix Inc | 1.41% | Not held |
| 0700.HKTencent Holdings Ltd | 0.85% | Not held |
| HSBA.LHSBC Holdings PLC | 0.82% | 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 3 covered evidence groups favor VXUS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VXUS | 53 vs 63 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | PDBA | Price vs 50-day -1.4% vs -2.6%; vs 200-day 3.3% vs 0.6% |
| Risk Resilience | VXUS | Risk Resilience 66 vs 82 |
| 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 VXUS 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 moderate at 10 points.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 VXUS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20VXUS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VXUS +10
- 53 vs 63
- 7 sessions ago
- VXUS +10
- 51 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- VXUS +14
- 48 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- VXUS +12
- 59 vs 71
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Sep 15 when PDBA moved ahead of VXUS.
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
No signal that the other name lacks.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only VXUS
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, MACD Bearish Crossover.
VXUS 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).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.31%, 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.
- 1PDBA closes the Quality gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to VXUS's edge.
- 2PDBA's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3VXUS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 10-point move would eliminate VXUS'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
PDBA leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | PDBA | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.8% | -0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.2% | -4.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.2% | -0.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.9% | 2.3% |
| Year to date | 10.7% | 11% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 5.9% | 12.8% |
Technicals
PDBA has the stronger structure| Metric | PDBA | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 51.5 | 41.4 |
| ADX (14) | 14.1 | 19.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.4% | -2.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.3% | 0.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 8.9% | 12.1% |
Risk
VXUS is the more resilient| Metric | PDBA | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.04 | 1.11 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.27 | 0.56 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.4 | 0.83 |
| Max drawdown | -8.6% | -11.4% |
| Current drawdown | -4.4% | -5.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 11.5% | 17.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.2% | -1.7% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between PDBA and VXUS?
VXUS holds 8,821 positions to PDBA's 3, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do PDBA and VXUS overlap?
PDBA and VXUS share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 2 holdings are unique to PDBA, and 8,281 holdings are unique to VXUS. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, PDBA or VXUS?
VXUS holds more positions: 8,821 versus 3 for PDBA.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VXUS has the lower expense ratio, 0.05% 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 2.37% for VXUS.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
VXUS has been more volatile over the past year, at 17.2% 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 -11.4% for VXUS.
Compare PDBA and VXUS 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.