ETF Comparison: Global X Copper Miners ETF (COPX) Versus Sprott Copper Miners ETF (COPP)

COPX vs. COPP: Total Cost of Ownership

As thematic products, neither of these ETFs is inexpensive. While broad sector ETFs can charge as little as 0.08%, copper is not a sector. It is a narrow subset of the materials space, and that specialization comes with higher costs. Both ETFs charge the same net expense ratio of 0.65%, which translates to roughly $65 per year on a $10,000 investment.

The expense ratio is not the only cost to consider. Trading costs matter as well, particularly the bid-ask spread, which reflects the difference between the price you can buy at and the price you can sell at. This is most relevant for short-term traders. On this front, COPX is meaningfully cheaper, with a 30-day average bid-ask spread of 0.053%. COPP is far less liquid, with a spread of 0.377%.

Verdict: When combining the expense ratio with average bid-ask spreads, COPX is the cheaper option for short-term trading. For long-term investors, the higher spread on COPP may be less relevant if positions are entered carefully and held over time.

COPX vs. COPP: Methodology and Holdings

Both ETFs are passive, but they track different indexes, which leads to meaningful differences in portfolio construction, concentration, and country exposure. There is overlap in holdings, but the way each fund expresses copper exposure is not the same.

COPX tracks the Selective Global Copper Miners Index. The result is a relatively concentrated portfolio of 35 holdings and an annualized yield of 2.28%. COPP follows a broader NASDAQ-sourced copper miners index with 174 holdings and a slightly lower yield of 2.05%.

Country exposure is similar at the top level, with both ETFs allocating more than 37% of assets to Canadian equities. That reflects Canada’s role as a home base for large, publicly listed mining companies, even when underlying operations are global. COPP has higher exposure to U.S. and United Kingdom listings, while COPX leans more heavily toward Australia and China as secondary allocations.

Holdings across both ETFs will look familiar to most investors. There is shared exposure to companies such as Freeport-McMoRan, Southern Copper, and Teck, alongside a mix of foreign-listed miners, including Polish, Chinese, and U.K. names. In both cases, exposure skews toward large-cap producers rather than smaller, higher-risk developers.

Verdict: COPX is my preferred option here. Despite having fewer holdings, its concentration is materially lower than COPP’s. If the goal is to express a bullish view on the copper industry as a whole rather than on a single producer, allocating roughly a quarter of a portfolio to one company, as COPP currently does, is a meaningful drawback.

COPX vs. COPP: Risk and Return

The shared performance history between these ETFs is limited. COPP only launched on March 5, 2024, while COPX dates back to April 19, 2010. That short overlap constrains longer-term comparisons, but recent data still offers some insight.

Across the trailing year, year to date, and the one- and three-month periods, both ETFs have posted strong gains. That is not surprising given the move in spot copper. However, COPX currently leads on absolute returns across those windows. It has also attracted meaningfully larger net inflows, running into the billions, compared with hundreds of millions for COPP.

Risk metrics tell a similar story. COPP has exhibited higher volatility than COPX over both the one- and three-year periods, with a wider dispersion of returns. It has also experienced a deeper maximum drawdown and a longer recovery period. The most likely driver is concentration. When a single holding represents a large share of the portfolio, performance tends to swing more sharply in both directions.

Verdict: COPX comes out ahead for me. It has delivered better historical returns with lower volatility, shallower drawdowns, and more diversified exposure within the copper mining space. For investors seeking broad copper miner exposure rather than a leveraged bet on a small number of producers, I think that balance matters.

Please note this article is for information purposes only and does not in any way constitute investment advice. It is essential that you seek advice from a registered financial professional prior to making any investment decision.