WGMI vs ZALT
CoinShares Bitcoin Mining and Digital Power ETF vs Innovator US Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly
Which is better, WGMI or ZALT?
Each has led over a different period.
ZALT has a lower expense ratio. WGMI led over 3Y and the full window, ZALT over 1Y. ZALT is less concentrated, with 38.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 61.7%.
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 | WGMI | ZALT |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.75% | 0.69%Best |
| AUM | $118M | $835M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 60 | 1,015 |
| YTD Return | -34.29% | +6.07%Best |
| 1Y Return | -42.11% | +7.22%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +44.63%Best | +9.90% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 85.5% | 3.8%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -67.7% | -8.2%Best |
| $10,000 over 3.1 years | $28,961Best | $13,502 |
| Top 10 Weight | 61.7% | 38.8%Best |
| Fund Family | Valkyrie Funds | Innovator ETFs Trust |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Multi Alternative |
| Inception | Feb 7, 2022 | Oct 2, 2023 |
Not shown on this pair: 5Y Return (annualized).
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.1 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Oct 2, 2023 to Nov 12, 2026 (3.1 years).
WGMI vs ZALT 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 is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.
WGMI vs ZALT Performance
CoinShares Bitcoin Mining and Digital Power ETF (WGMI) is an ETF from Valkyrie Funds and Innovator US Equity 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly (ZALT) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust. Over the past year WGMI returned -42.11% while ZALT returned +7.22%. Year to date, WGMI is down 34.29% versus a gain of 6.07% for ZALT.
Over three years, WGMI compounded at +44.63% per year against +9.90% for ZALT.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
WGMI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 85.5% compared with 3.8% for ZALT. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -67.7% for WGMI and -8.2% for ZALT. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.58. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
WGMI charges 0.75% per year while ZALT charges 0.69%. On a $10,000 position that is $75 vs $69 annually, a gap of $6 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, WGMI currently yields 0.00% against 0.00% for ZALT.
Holdings Overlap
4.3% of WGMI's money is in holdings ZALT also owns. 8.1% of ZALT's money is in holdings WGMI also owns.
ZALT and WGMI share little of their money.
2 positions in common, counted across the 28 positions we hold weights for in WGMI and 493 in ZALT, against full books of 60 and 1,015.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 491 positions for ZALT that do not appear in our book for WGMI (91.6% of the fund), and 17 for WGMI that do not appear in ZALT (58.7%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of WGMI and ZALT 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, WGMI or ZALT?
WGMI has an expense ratio of 0.75% while ZALT charges 0.69%. ZALT is the cheaper option, by $6 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, WGMI or ZALT?
Over the past year WGMI returned -42.11% vs +7.22% for ZALT, so ZALT leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, WGMI or ZALT?
WGMI has been the more volatile fund at 85.5% annualized versus 3.8% for ZALT. Worst drawdown: WGMI -67.7% vs ZALT -8.2%.
Should I hold both WGMI and ZALT?
WGMI and ZALT have a monthly-return correlation of 0.58, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between WGMI and ZALT?
8.1% of ZALT's money is in holdings WGMI also owns. 8.1% of ZALT's is in holdings WGMI also owns. They hold 2 positions in common, counted across the 28 positions we hold weights for in WGMI and 493 in ZALT.
Which pays a higher dividend, WGMI or ZALT?
WGMI yields 0.00% while ZALT yields 0.00%, so ZALT currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is ZALT better than WGMI?
ZALT has a lower expense ratio. WGMI led over 3Y and the full window, ZALT over 1Y. ZALT is less concentrated, with 38.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 61.7%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.