GDXD vs. LENS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GDXD (MicroSectors Gold Miners -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs) and LENS (Sarmaya Thematic ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GDXD is a Inverse Equities fund tracking the S-Network MicroSectors Gold Miners Index - Benchmark TR Gross (-300%), while LENS is a Global Equities fund actively managed by Sarmaya Partners. GDXD is passively managed, while LENS is actively managed. Over the past year, GDXD returned -93.08% vs 64.37% for LENS. At a correlation of -0.87, they often move in opposite directions. GDXD charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for LENS.

Performance

GDXD vs. LENS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors Gold Miners -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs (GDXD) and Sarmaya Thematic ETF (LENS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GDXD achieves a -51.20% return, which is significantly lower than LENS's 15.10% return.

GDXD

• 1D: 10.76%
• 1M: -10.12%
• YTD: -51.20%
• 6M: -62.62%
• 1Y: -93.08%
• 3Y*: -84.24%
• 5Y*: -72.73%
• 10Y*: —

LENS

• 1D: 0.91%
• 1M: -0.94%
• YTD: 15.10%
• 6M: 21.08%
• 1Y: 64.37%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GDXD vs. LENS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
GDXD MicroSectors Gold Miners -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs	-51.20%	-96.49%
LENS Sarmaya Thematic ETF	15.10%	56.21%

Correlation

The correlation between GDXD and LENS is -0.89, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 30, 2025	-0.87

The correlation between GDXD and LENS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from -0.89 to -0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

GDXD vs. LENS — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

GDXD

GDXD Risk / Return Rank: 2
GDXD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3
GDXD Sortino Ratio Rank: 1
GDXD Omega Ratio Rank: 1
GDXD Calmar Ratio Rank: 1
GDXD Martin Ratio Rank: 3

LENS

LENS Risk / Return Rank: 69
LENS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
LENS Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
LENS Omega Ratio Rank: 70
LENS Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
LENS Martin Ratio Rank: 61

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

GDXD vs. LENS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors Gold Miners -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs (GDXD) and Sarmaya Thematic ETF (LENS). 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.

	GDXD	LENS	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	-0.68	2.44	-3.13
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	-1.88	2.79	-4.68
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.80	1.43	-0.62
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.97	4.46	-5.43
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	-1.22	11.27	-12.49
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GDXD vs. LENS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GDXD Sharpe Ratio is -0.68, which is lower than the LENS Sharpe Ratio of 2.44. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GDXD and LENS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GDXD	LENS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.68	2.44	-3.13
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.66	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.67	2.17	-2.84

Drawdowns

GDXD vs. LENS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GDXD drawdown since its inception was -99.96%, which is greater than LENS's maximum drawdown of -15.47%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GDXD and LENS.

Drawdown Indicators

	GDXD	LENS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-99.96%	-15.47%	-84.49%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-96.33%	-15.47%	-80.86%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-99.86%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-99.96%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-99.93%	-12.28%	-87.65%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-71.85%	-3.68%	-68.17%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	75.91%	6.13%	+69.78%

Volatility

GDXD vs. LENS - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors Gold Miners -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs (GDXD) has a higher volatility of 47.44% compared to Sarmaya Thematic ETF (LENS) at 6.02%. This indicates that GDXD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LENS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GDXD	LENS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	47.44%	6.02%	+41.42%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	109.86%	22.01%	+87.85%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	136.25%	26.61%	+109.64%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	109.97%	25.48%	+84.49%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	109.35%	25.48%	+83.87%

GDXD vs. LENS - Expense Ratio Comparison

GDXD has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than LENS's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

GDXD vs. LENS - Dividend Comparison

GDXD has not paid dividends to shareholders, while LENS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.39%.

Position	TTM	2025
GDXD MicroSectors Gold Miners -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs	0.00%	0.00%
LENS Sarmaya Thematic ETF	1.39%	1.60%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GDXD and LENS in my portfolio?

GDXD and LENS have a correlation of -0.89, 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 LENS?

GDXD has higher volatility (47.44%) compared to LENS (6.02%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GDXD dropped -99.96% vs LENS's -15.47%.

Which ETF is better, GDXD or LENS?

On 1-year performance, LENS leads with 64.37% vs -93.08% for GDXD. On fees, LENS is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, LENS has been the lower-risk option at 6.02%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GDXD or LENS?

Over the 1-year period, LENS has performed better with a 64.37% return vs -93.08%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GDXD or LENS?

LENS is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for GDXD.

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

LENS has the higher dividend yield at 1.39%, compared with 0.00% for GDXD.

What is the main difference between GDXD and LENS?

GDXD is categorized as Inverse Equities, while LENS is Global Equities. They also come from different issuers: BMO and Sarmaya Partners. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for GDXD and 0.79% for LENS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LENS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.44 vs -0.68), 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.