GPZ vs. VFH

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

GPZ (VanEck Alternative Asset Manager ETF) and VFH (Vanguard Financials ETF) are both Financials Equities funds - GPZ tracks the MarketVector Alternative Asset Managers Index while VFH tracks the MSCI US Investable Market Financials 25/50 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, GPZ returned -11.53% vs 8.93% for VFH. A 0.70 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GPZ charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for VFH.

Performance

GPZ vs. VFH - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GPZ achieves a -19.30% return, which is significantly lower than VFH's -0.29% return.

GPZ

• 1D: -2.58%
• 1M: -5.07%
• YTD: -19.30%
• 6M: -20.44%
• 1Y: -11.53%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

VFH

• 1D: 0.40%
• 1M: 4.17%
• YTD: -0.29%
• 6M: -1.61%
• 1Y: 8.93%
• 3Y*: 21.01%
• 5Y*: 10.11%
• 10Y*: 13.51%

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

GPZ vs. VFH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
GPZ VanEck Alternative Asset Manager ETF	-19.30%	9.24%
VFH Vanguard Financials ETF	-0.29%	10.05%

Correlation

The correlation between GPZ and VFH is 0.70, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.70
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 5, 2025	0.70

The correlation between GPZ and VFH has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.70 to 0.70 - a consistent structural relationship.

GPZ vs. VFH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GPZ	VFH
Financial Services	100.0%	96.8%
Real Estate	2.3%	0.8%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	0.0%
Consumer Cyclical	-	0.0%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	0.1%
Industrials	-	0.2%
Technology	-	2.1%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

GPZ vs. VFH — Risk / Return Rank

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

GPZ

GPZ Risk / Return Rank: 6
GPZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5
GPZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
GPZ Omega Ratio Rank: 5
GPZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 6
GPZ Martin Ratio Rank: 6

VFH

VFH Risk / Return Rank: 17
VFH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 19
VFH Sortino Ratio Rank: 17
VFH Omega Ratio Rank: 17
VFH Calmar Ratio Rank: 16
VFH Martin Ratio Rank: 16

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.

GPZ vs. VFH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Alternative Asset Manager ETF (GPZ) and Vanguard Financials ETF (VFH). 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	VFH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.42	0.60	-1.02
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.41	0.91	-1.31
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.95	1.11	-0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.36	0.61	-0.97
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.73	1.58	-2.31

GPZ vs. VFH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GPZ Sharpe Ratio is -0.42, which is lower than the VFH Sharpe Ratio of 0.60. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GPZ and VFH, 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. VFH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GPZ drawdown since its inception was -31.72%, smaller than the maximum VFH drawdown of -78.61%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GPZ and VFH.

Drawdown Indicators

	GPZ	VFH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.72%	-78.61%	+46.89%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-31.72%	-14.75%	-16.97%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-17.30%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-25.66%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-44.42%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-25.87%	-3.32%	-22.55%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.27%	-18.51%	+6.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	15.80%	5.67%	+10.13%

Volatility

GPZ vs. VFH - Volatility Comparison

VanEck Alternative Asset Manager ETF (GPZ) has a higher volatility of 9.25% compared to Vanguard Financials ETF (VFH) at 4.19%. This indicates that GPZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than VFH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GPZ	VFH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.25%	4.19%	+5.06%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.33%	11.42%	+10.91%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.85%	14.95%	+12.90%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.60%	19.26%	+8.34%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.60%	22.50%	+5.10%

GPZ vs. VFH - Expense Ratio Comparison

GPZ has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than VFH's 0.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

GPZ vs. VFH - Dividend Comparison

GPZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.03%, less than VFH's 1.47% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GPZ VanEck Alternative Asset Manager ETF	1.03%	0.83%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
VFH Vanguard Financials ETF	1.47%	1.55%	1.75%	2.08%	2.31%	1.87%	2.21%	2.17%	2.30%	1.53%	1.63%	2.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GPZ and VFH in my portfolio?

GPZ and VFH have a correlation of 0.70, 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 VFH?

GPZ has higher volatility (9.25%) compared to VFH (4.19%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GPZ dropped -31.72% vs VFH's -78.61%.

Which ETF is better, GPZ or VFH?

On 1-year performance, VFH leads with 8.93% vs -11.53% for GPZ. On fees, VFH is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, VFH has been the lower-risk option at 4.19%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GPZ or VFH?

Over the 1-year period, VFH has performed better with a 8.93% return vs -11.53%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GPZ or VFH?

VFH is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for GPZ.

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

VFH has the higher dividend yield at 1.47%, compared with 1.03% for GPZ.

What is the main difference between GPZ and VFH?

GPZ tracks MarketVector Alternative Asset Managers Index, while VFH tracks MSCI US Investable Market Financials 25/50 Index. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Vanguard. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for GPZ and 0.09% for VFH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

VFH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.60 vs -0.42), 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.