Screener
MOO vs GPZ
VanEck Agribusiness ETF vs VanEck Alternative Asset Manager ETF
Key differences
- GPZ costs 0.16% less per year.
- MOO is significantly larger than GPZ — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- MOO has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| MOO | GPZ | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.56% | 0.40% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $1.2B | $245M |
| Since | 2007 | 2025 |
| Dividend yield | 2.15% | — |
| Asset class | equity | equity |
| Region | — | — |
| Strategy | index tracking | index tracking |
| CAGR 1Y | +14.3% | N/A |
| CAGR 3Y | +2.5% | N/A |
| CAGR 5Y | -0.6% | N/A |
| Sharpe 3Y | 0.01 | N/A |
| Volatility 1Y | 13.89% | — |
| Max drawdown | -39.52% | -31.72% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to MOO and GPZ
Explore further