PHYS vs VOO: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
PHYS and VOO are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. PHYS is Sprott Physical Gold Trust, while VOO is Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VOO ahead on AIQ Score, 64 versus 58.
| Metric | PHYS | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -4% | +16.4% |
| YTD return | -5.8% | +12.7% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +17% | +12.6% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 30.2% | 12.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -26.8% | -9.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -26.8% | -24.5% |
| Beta | 0.83 | 1.00 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.09 | 0.91 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.11 | 1.38 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 58/100 | 64/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 7/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 40/100 | 64/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 62/100 | 87/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Sprott Physical Gold Trust vs Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO leads
VOO leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 11 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 3 evidence groups support VOO, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Sprott Physical Gold Trust
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VOO over PHYS, 64 versus 58 as of Oct 21, 2026. VOO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum. VOO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor VOO today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. VOO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Sprott Physical Gold Trust and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
PHYS 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 | PHYS | VOO | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -26.8% | -24.5% | VOO |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 30.2% | 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 PHYS 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.
- Risk Resilience62 vs 87VOO +25
- Momentum40 vs 64VOO +24
- Quality72 vs 77VOO +5
3 of 3 evidence groups favor VOO. VOO’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +17
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
VOO's lead widened by 4 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PHYS and VOO 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 | PHYS | VOO | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annualized volatility | 30.2% | 12.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -26.8% | -9.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.09 | 0.91 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.83 | 1.00 | 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 VOO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VOO | 58 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | VOO | Price vs 50-day -4.4% vs 0.6%; vs 200-day -9% vs 5.9% |
| Risk Resilience | VOO | Risk Resilience 62 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 PHYS and VOO and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 6 points.
- 3 of 3 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 VOO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20VOO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VOO +6
- 58 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- VOO +7
- 56 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- VOO +11
- 53 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- PHYS +2
- 70 vs 68
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 11 when VOO 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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only PHYS
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.64%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only VOO
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.84%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.93%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.2%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
VOO 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 +0.39%, 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.
- 1PHYS closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to VOO's edge.
- 2PHYS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3VOO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate VOO'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.
Fundamentals
Split| Metric | PHYS | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| 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
VOO leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | PHYS | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1% | -1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.5% | -0.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.3% | 2.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -12.2% | 9.2% |
| Year to date | -5.8% | 12.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -4% | 16.4% |
Technicals
VOO has the stronger structure| Metric | PHYS | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.9 | 56.2 |
| ADX (14) | 16.1 | 12.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.4% | 0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -9% | 5.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.7% | 9.4% |
Risk
VOO is the more resilient| Metric | PHYS | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.83 | 1 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.09 | 0.91 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.11 | 1.38 |
| Max drawdown | -26.8% | -9.2% |
| Current drawdown | -24% | -1.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 30.2% | 12.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.5% | -1.4% |
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 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 -26.8% for PHYS.
Compare PHYS 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.