PICK vs VXUS: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
PICK and VXUS are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. PICK is iShares MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF, while VXUS is Vanguard Total International Stock ETF. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VXUS ahead on AIQ Score, 63 versus 52.
| Metric | PICK | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +25.7% | +12.8% |
| YTD return | +12.7% | +11% |
| 5Y annualized returnPrice return, distributions excluded | +5.7% | +5% |
| Risk | ||
| Max drawdown (5Y)Price return, distributions excluded | -42.7% | -31.2% |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 52/100 | 63/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 31/100 | 41/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 66/100 | 82/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF vs Vanguard Total International Stock ETF
VXUS leads
VXUS leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality.
Stable: 3 of 3 evidence groups support VXUS.
iShares MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF
Vanguard Total International Stock ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VXUS over PICK, 63 versus 52 as of Oct 21, 2026. VXUS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. VXUS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor VXUS today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability.
Compare iShares MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF and Vanguard Total International Stock ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare PICK 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.
- Risk Resilience66 vs 82VXUS +16
- Quality62 vs 76VXUS +14
- Momentum31 vs 41VXUS +10
3 of 3 evidence groups favor VXUS. VXUS’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 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 | 52 vs 63 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | VXUS | Price vs 50-day -7.7% vs -2.6%; vs 200-day -4.3% 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 PICK and VXUS 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.
- 3 of 3 covered evidence groups point the same way. (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 VXUS.
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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to VXUS's edge.
- 2PICK generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3VXUS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
VXUS leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | PICK | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.4% | -0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -7.7% | -4.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.2% | -0.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -6% | 2.3% |
| Year to date | 12.7% | 11% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 25.7% | 12.8% |
Technicals
VXUS has the stronger structure| Metric | PICK | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37.8 | 41.4 |
| ADX (14) | 21.6 | 19.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -7.7% | -2.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.3% | 0.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.7% | 12.1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
VXUS fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -31.2% against -42.7% for PICK.
Compare PICK 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.