GDXD vs. FLYD

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

GDXD (MicroSectors Gold Miners -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs due June 29, 2040) and FLYD (MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs) are both Inverse Equities funds - GDXD tracks the S-Network MicroSectors Gold Miners Index while FLYD tracks the MerQube MicroSectors U.S. Travel Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, GDXD returned -83.55%/yr vs -52.04%/yr for FLYD. Their 0.22 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

GDXD vs. FLYD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors Gold Miners -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs due June 29, 2040 (GDXD) and MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs (FLYD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GDXD achieves a -42.32% return, which is significantly lower than FLYD's -29.08% return.

GDXD

• 1D: 10.48%
• 1M: 10.38%
• 6M: -10.42%
• YTD: -42.32%
• 1Y: -91.93%
• 3Y*: -83.55%
• 5Y*: -73.29%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -70.78%

FLYD

• 1D: 2.07%
• 1M: 4.87%
• 6M: -35.29%
• YTD: -29.08%
• 1Y: -48.77%
• 3Y*: -52.04%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -62.88%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
FLYD MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs	$95.69K	$124.77K	$139.75K
GDXD MicroSectors Gold Miners -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs due June 29, 2040	$19.58M	$21.95M	$29.87M

GDXD vs. FLYD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
GDXD MicroSectors Gold Miners -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs due June 29, 2040	-42.32%	-97.53%	-57.78%	-52.35%	-38.62%
FLYD MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs	-29.08%	-60.42%	-54.13%	-75.14%	-46.63%

Correlation

The correlation between GDXD and FLYD is 0.22, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.22
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.17
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 22, 2022	0.22

GDXD vs. FLYD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GDXD	FLYD
Basic Materials	100.0%	-
Communication Services	-	7.4%
Consumer Cyclical	-	50.0%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	25.5%
Real Estate	-	0.1%
Technology	-	17.1%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

GDXD vs. FLYD — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

GDXD

GDXD Risk / Return Rank: 2
GDXD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
GDXD Sortino Ratio Rank: 2
GDXD Omega Ratio Rank: 2
GDXD Calmar Ratio Rank: 0
GDXD Martin Ratio Rank: 4

FLYD

FLYD Risk / Return Rank: 4
FLYD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
FLYD Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
FLYD Omega Ratio Rank: 5
FLYD Calmar Ratio Rank: 3
FLYD Martin Ratio Rank: 0

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

GDXD vs. FLYD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors Gold Miners -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs due June 29, 2040 (GDXD) and MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs (FLYD). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	GDXD	FLYD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.63	-0.59	-0.04
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.50	-0.53	-0.97
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.84	0.94	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.96	-0.81	-0.15
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.11	-1.51	+0.39

GDXD vs. FLYD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GDXD Sharpe Ratio is -0.63, which is comparable to the FLYD Sharpe Ratio of -0.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GDXD and FLYD, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

GDXD vs. FLYD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GDXD drawdown since its inception was -99.96%, roughly equal to the maximum FLYD drawdown of -98.49%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GDXD and FLYD.

Drawdown Indicators

	GDXD	FLYD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-99.96%	-98.49%	-1.47%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-95.95%	-56.11%	-39.84%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-99.86%	-94.73%	-5.13%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-99.96%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-99.92%	-98.36%	-1.56%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-72.59%	-83.63%	+11.04%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	83.56%	30.18%	+53.38%

Volatility

GDXD vs. FLYD - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors Gold Miners -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs due June 29, 2040 (GDXD) has a higher volatility of 40.76% compared to MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs (FLYD) at 21.84%. This indicates that GDXD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLYD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GDXD	FLYD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	40.76%	21.84%	+18.92%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	118.25%	64.55%	+53.70%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	146.68%	76.98%	+69.70%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	112.62%	83.54%	+29.08%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	110.97%	83.54%	+27.43%

GDXD vs. FLYD - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both GDXD and FLYD have an expense ratio of 0.95%.

Dividends

GDXD vs. FLYD - Dividend Comparison

Neither GDXD nor FLYD has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GDXD and FLYD in my portfolio?

GDXD and FLYD have a correlation of 0.22, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GDXD or FLYD?

GDXD has higher volatility (40.76%) compared to FLYD (21.84%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GDXD dropped -99.96% vs FLYD's -98.49%.

Which ETF is better, GDXD or FLYD?

On 3-year performance, FLYD leads with -52.04% vs -83.55% for GDXD. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, FLYD has been the lower-risk option at 21.84%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GDXD or FLYD?

Over the 3-year period, FLYD has performed better with a -52.04% return vs -83.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GDXD or FLYD?

GDXD and FLYD have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GDXD or FLYD?

GDXD and FLYD have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between GDXD and FLYD?

GDXD tracks S-Network MicroSectors Gold Miners Index, while FLYD tracks MerQube MicroSectors U.S. Travel Index. They also come from different issuers: BMO and REX.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLYD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.59 vs -0.63), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.