PDBC vs PHYS: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
PDBC and PHYS are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. PDBC is Invesco Optimum Yield Diversified Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF, while PHYS is Sprott Physical Gold Trust. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has PDBC ahead on AIQ Score, 75 versus 58.
| Metric | PDBC | PHYS |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +51.8% | -4% |
| YTD return | +51.1% | -5.8% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +11.9% | +17% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 20.8% | 30.2% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.6% | -26.8% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -27.6% | -26.8% |
| Beta | -0.40 | 0.83 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.93 | -0.09 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.96 | -0.11 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 75/100 | 58/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 10/10 | 7/10 |
| Momentum | 77/100 | 40/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 78/100 | 62/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco Optimum Yield Diversified Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF vs Sprott Physical Gold Trust
PDBC leads
PDBC leads by 17 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 13 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 3 of 3 evidence groups support PDBC, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Invesco Optimum Yield Diversified Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF
Sprott Physical Gold Trust
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PDBC over PHYS, 75 versus 58 as of Oct 21, 2026. PDBC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. 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 13 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Invesco Optimum Yield Diversified Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF and Sprott Physical Gold Trust across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
PDBC 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 | PDBC | PHYS | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -27.6% | -26.8% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 20.8% | 30.2% | PDBC |
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 PDBC 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.
- Momentum77 vs 40PDBC +37
- Risk Resilience78 vs 62PDBC +16
- Quality72 vs 72Even
3 of 3 evidence groups favor PDBC. PDBC’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
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 -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.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 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 — PDBC 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 | PDBC | PHYS | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annualized volatility | 20.8% | 30.2% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.6% | -26.8% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.93 | -0.09 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | -0.40 | 0.83 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
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 | 75 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | PDBC | Price vs 50-day 4.1% vs -4.4%; vs 200-day 16.6% vs -9% |
| Risk Resilience | PDBC | Risk Resilience 78 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 PDBC and PHYS 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 17 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 lead has been steady session to session. (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 13 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PDBC +17
- 75 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- PDBC +16
- 72 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- PDBC +13
- 66 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- PDBC +4
- 74 vs 70
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 14 when PDBC moved ahead of PHYS.
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.
5 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only PDBC
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.74%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.44%)
- 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
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only PHYS
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.64%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bullish Crossover.
PHYS 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 -0.2%, 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.
- 1PHYS closes the Momentum gap — currently 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to PDBC's edge.
- 2PHYS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend 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.
Fundamentals
Split| Metric | PDBC | 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
PDBC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | PDBC | PHYS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.2% | -1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.4% | -5.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 12.4% | -0.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 15.1% | -12.2% |
| Year to date | 51.1% | -5.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 51.8% | -4% |
Technicals
PDBC has the stronger structure| Metric | PDBC | PHYS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 68.7 | 47.9 |
| ADX (14) | 22.7 | 16.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.1% | -4.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.6% | -9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.4% | 20.7% |
Risk
PDBC is the more resilient| Metric | PDBC | PHYS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.4 | 0.83 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.93 | -0.09 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.96 | -0.11 |
| Max drawdown | -16.6% | -26.8% |
| Current drawdown | -0.5% | -24% |
| Annualized volatility | 20.8% | 30.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -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 20.8% for PDBC.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -27.6% for PDBC and -26.8% for PHYS.
Compare PDBC 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.