PDBC vs VOO: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
PDBC and VOO 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 VOO is Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. VOO is broader by holdings count, with 508 positions versus 3 for PDBC. VOO has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has PDBC ahead on AIQ Score, 75 versus 64.
What is the main difference between PDBC and VOO?
VOO holds 508 positions to PDBC's 3, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | PDBC | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.74% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 3 | 508 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 2.54% | 1.05% |
| Average volume | 6,428,418 | 7,814,237 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +51.8% | +16.4% |
| YTD return | +51.1% | +12.7% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +11.9% | +12.6% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 20.8% | 12.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.6% | -9.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -27.6% | -24.5% |
| Beta | -0.40 | 1.00 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.93 | 0.91 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.96 | 1.38 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 75/100 | 64/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 10/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 77/100 | 64/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 78/100 | 87/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco Optimum Yield Diversified Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF vs Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
PDBC leads
PDBC leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 2 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
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PDBC over VOO, 75 versus 64 as of Oct 21, 2026. PDBC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while VOO holds the stronger risk resilience profile. PDBC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor PDBC today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. PDBC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Invesco Optimum Yield Diversified Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
PDBC vs VOO: 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 | VOO | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.74% | 0.03% | VOO |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 3 | 508 | VOO |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 2.54% | 1.05% | PDBC |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -27.6% | -24.5% | VOO |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 20.8% | 12.8% | VOO |
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 VOO 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 64PDBC +13
- Risk Resilience78 vs 87VOO +9
- Quality72 vs 77VOO +5
2 of 3 evidence groups favor PDBC. PDBC’s edge is concentrated in momentum; VOO 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 -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.
Largest factor move: Momentum +17
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
PDBC's lead narrowed by 4 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PDBC and VOO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PDBC (Invesco Optimum Yield Diversified Commodity Strategy No K-1 ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
VOO (Vanguard S&P 500 ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience, quality.
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 | VOO | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.74% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 3 | 508 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 6,428,418 | 7,814,237 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 20.8% | 12.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.6% | -9.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.93 | 0.91 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | -0.40 | 1.00 | 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
PDBC and VOO share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
2 holdings are unique to PDBC, and 505 holdings are unique to VOO. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
What PDBC adds that VOO doesn’t
| Holding | PDBC | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Invesco Premier US Government Money Portfolio | 75.5% | Not held |
| POWERSHARES CAYMAN FUND | 24.42% | Not held |
What VOO adds that PDBC doesn’t
| Holding | VOO | PDBC |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 7.55% | Not held |
| AAPLApple Inc | 7.05% | Not held |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.36% | Not held |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 4.13% | Not held |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 3.24% | Not held |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.86% | 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 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 64 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | PDBC | Price vs 50-day 4.1% vs 0.6%; vs 200-day 16.6% vs 5.9% |
| Risk Resilience | VOO | Risk Resilience 78 vs 87 |
| 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 VOO 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 moderate at 11 points.
- 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 2 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PDBC +11
- 75 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- PDBC +9
- 72 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- PDBC +2
- 66 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- PDBC +6
- 74 vs 68
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Oct 5 when VOO moved ahead of PDBC.
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
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only VOO
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 5 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, 52-Week High Proximity, Uptrend Structure Active.
VOO 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).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.55%, AIQ +4 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.
- 1VOO closes the Momentum gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to PDBC's edge.
- 2VOO generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 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 | PDBC | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.2% | -1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.4% | -0.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 12.4% | 2.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 15.1% | 9.2% |
| Year to date | 51.1% | 12.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 51.8% | 16.4% |
Technicals
PDBC has the stronger structure| Metric | PDBC | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 68.7 | 56.2 |
| ADX (14) | 22.7 | 12.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.1% | 0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.6% | 5.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.4% | 9.4% |
Risk
VOO is the more resilient| Metric | PDBC | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.4 | 1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.93 | 0.91 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.96 | 1.38 |
| Max drawdown | -16.6% | -9.2% |
| Current drawdown | -0.5% | -1.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 20.8% | 12.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between PDBC and VOO?
VOO holds 508 positions to PDBC's 3, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do PDBC and VOO overlap?
PDBC and VOO share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 2 holdings are unique to PDBC, and 505 holdings are unique to VOO. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, PDBC or VOO?
VOO holds more positions: 508 versus 3 for PDBC.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VOO has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.74% for PDBC.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
PDBC, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.54% against 1.05% for VOO.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
PDBC has been more volatile over the past year, at 20.8% annualized against 12.8% for VOO.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
VOO fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -24.5% against -27.6% for PDBC.
Compare PDBC and VOO 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.