GDXD vs VTI
MicroSectors Gold Miners -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, GDXD or VTI?
Gold against Large Cap Blend.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | GDXD | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.95% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $104M | $689.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | - | 3,542 |
| YTD Return | -76.67% | +8.54%Best |
| 1Y Return | -89.28% | +11.14%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | -88.15% | +20.29%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -77.75% | +9.84%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 101.2% | 15.1%Best |
| Max Drawdown | - | -25.4% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $5 | $15,988Best |
| Fund Family | BMO Capital Markets | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Commodity | Equity |
| Style | Gold | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Dec 2, 2020 | May 24, 2001 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 3, 2020 to Nov 6, 2026 (5.9 years).
GDXD vs VTI growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 5.9 years both funds cover.
GDXD vs VTI Performance
MicroSectors Gold Miners -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (GDXD) is an ETF from BMO Capital Markets and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year GDXD returned -89.28% while VTI returned +11.14%. Year to date, GDXD is down 76.67% versus a gain of 8.54% for VTI.
Over three years, GDXD compounded at -88.15% per year against +20.29% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are -77.75% and +9.84% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +13.03% annualized vs -73.47%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
GDXD has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 101.2% compared with 15.1% for VTI. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at -0.31. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
GDXD charges 0.95% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $95 vs $3 annually, a gap of $92 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, GDXD currently yields 0.00% against 1.06% for VTI.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of GDXD and VTI you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, GDXD or VTI?
GDXD has an expense ratio of 0.95% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $92 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, GDXD or VTI?
Over the past year GDXD returned -89.28% vs +11.14% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), GDXD annualized -73.47% vs +13.03% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, GDXD or VTI?
GDXD has been the more volatile fund at 101.2% annualized versus 15.1% for VTI.
Should I hold both GDXD and VTI?
GDXD and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of -0.31, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, GDXD or VTI?
GDXD yields 0.00% while VTI yields 1.06%, so VTI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than GDXD?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.