GPZ vs. IXG

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

GPZ (VanEck Alternative Asset Manager ETF) and IXG (iShares Global Financials ETF) are both Financials Equities funds - GPZ tracks the MarketVector Alternative Asset Managers Index while IXG tracks the S&P Global 1200 Financials (Sector) Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, GPZ returned -11.39% vs 25.03% for IXG. Their 0.73 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. GPZ charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.41%/yr for IXG.

Performance

GPZ vs. IXG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck Alternative Asset Manager ETF (GPZ) and iShares Global Financials ETF (IXG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GPZ achieves a -10.76% return, which is significantly lower than IXG's 12.41% return.

GPZ

• 1D: 3.99%
• 1M: 10.24%
• 6M: -7.66%
• YTD: -10.76%
• 1Y: -11.39%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -2.17%

IXG

• 1D: 0.65%
• 1M: 4.77%
• 6M: 10.55%
• YTD: 12.41%
• 1Y: 25.03%
• 3Y*: 25.22%
• 5Y*: 14.81%
• 10Y*: 13.19%
• ALL TIME*: 6.45%

*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)
GPZ VanEck Alternative Asset Manager ETF	$3.65M	$3.76M	$4.22M
IXG iShares Global Financials ETF	$8.61M	$9.58M	$5.82M

GPZ vs. IXG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
GPZ VanEck Alternative Asset Manager ETF	-10.76%	9.24%
IXG iShares Global Financials ETF	12.41%	13.38%

Correlation

The correlation between GPZ and IXG is 0.72, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.72
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 5, 2025	0.73

The correlation between GPZ and IXG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.73 - a consistent structural relationship.

GPZ vs. IXG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GPZ	IXG
Financial Services	100.0%	98.4%
Real Estate	2.3%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	0.0%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	0.1%
Healthcare	-	0.1%
Industrials	-	0.1%
Technology	-	1.0%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

GPZ vs. IXG — Risk / Return Rank

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

GPZ

GPZ Risk / Return Rank: 6
GPZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6
GPZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
GPZ Omega Ratio Rank: 6
GPZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 6
GPZ Martin Ratio Rank: 7

IXG

IXG Risk / Return Rank: 70
IXG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
IXG Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
IXG Omega Ratio Rank: 70
IXG Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
IXG Martin Ratio Rank: 63

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.

GPZ vs. IXG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Alternative Asset Manager ETF (GPZ) and iShares Global Financials ETF (IXG). 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.

	GPZ	IXG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.41	1.79	-2.20
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.39	2.57	-2.96
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.95	1.30	-0.35
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.36	2.22	-2.58
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.64	7.88	-8.52

GPZ vs. IXG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GPZ Sharpe Ratio is -0.41, which is lower than the IXG Sharpe Ratio of 1.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GPZ and IXG, 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

GPZ vs. IXG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GPZ drawdown since its inception was -31.72%, smaller than the maximum IXG drawdown of -78.42%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GPZ and IXG.

Drawdown Indicators

	GPZ	IXG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.72%	-78.42%	+46.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-31.72%	-11.33%	-20.39%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-13.54%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-27.20%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-43.47%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-18.02%	0.00%	-18.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.43%	-19.63%	+6.20%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	17.76%	3.18%	+14.58%

Volatility

GPZ vs. IXG - Volatility Comparison

VanEck Alternative Asset Manager ETF (GPZ) has a higher volatility of 7.78% compared to iShares Global Financials ETF (IXG) at 4.13%. This indicates that GPZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IXG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GPZ	IXG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.78%	4.13%	+3.65%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.75%	11.48%	+11.27%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	28.06%	14.08%	+13.98%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.57%	17.26%	+10.31%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.57%	19.88%	+7.69%

GPZ vs. IXG - Expense Ratio Comparison

GPZ has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than IXG's 0.41% expense ratio.

Dividends

GPZ vs. IXG - Dividend Comparison

GPZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.93%, less than IXG's 2.12% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GPZ VanEck Alternative Asset Manager ETF	0.93%	0.83%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
IXG iShares Global Financials ETF	2.12%	2.04%	2.64%	2.62%	3.71%	1.69%	2.13%	2.87%	3.14%	2.12%	2.21%	2.79%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GPZ and IXG in my portfolio?

GPZ and IXG have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GPZ or IXG?

GPZ has higher volatility (7.78%) compared to IXG (4.13%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GPZ dropped -31.72% vs IXG's -78.42%.

Which ETF is better, GPZ or IXG?

On 1-year performance, IXG leads with 25.03% vs -11.39% for GPZ. On fees, GPZ is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, IXG has been the lower-risk option at 4.13%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GPZ or IXG?

Over the 1-year period, IXG has performed better with a 25.03% return vs -11.39%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GPZ or IXG?

GPZ is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.41% for IXG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GPZ or IXG?

IXG has the higher dividend yield at 2.12%, compared with 0.93% for GPZ.

What is the main difference between GPZ and IXG?

GPZ tracks MarketVector Alternative Asset Managers Index, while IXG tracks S&P Global 1200 Financials (Sector) Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for GPZ and 0.41% for IXG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IXG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.79 vs -0.41), 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.