ETF Showdown: ARKG vs GNOM, Which Genomics Fund Wins?

By Trey Thoelcke Published Jul 21, 9:10AM EDT

Quick Read

ARKG's concentrated, active bet on pre-revenue biotech gained 32% YTD but lost 13 more percentage points than GNOM over the past five years.
ARKG's $1.4 billion in assets versus GNOM's $75 million gives larger investors meaningfully tighter spreads and better liquidity.
GNOM suits retirement investors as a core holding; ARKG works best as a satellite bet sized to survive another potential 50% drawdown.
Are you ahead, or behind on retirement? SmartAsset's free tool can match you with a financial advisor in minutes to help you answer that today. Each advisor has been carefully vetted, and must act in your best interests. Don't waste another minute; learn more here.

This post may contain links from our sponsors and affiliates, and Flywheel Publishing may receive compensation for actions taken through them.

ETF Showdown: ARKG vs GNOM, Which Genomics Fund Wins? — © undefined / Getty Images

The ARK Genomic Revolution ETF (CBOE:ARKG) and the Global X Genomics & Biotechnology ETF (NASDAQ:GNOM) look like siblings on any screener. Both promise pure-play exposure to gene editing, sequencing, and precision medicine, but they differ structurally. One is Cathie Wood’s discretionary bet on unprofitable innovators. The other tracks the Solactive Genomics Index and quietly holds Moderna and Vertex next to the moonshots. Over the past year, that structural gap produced a 32.0% year-to-date move in one and a 17.0% move in the other, going in the same direction but at very different speeds.

What Each Fund Is Actually Betting On

ARKG is a concentrated wager on pre-revenue and early-revenue platforms. Its top three positions, Twist Bioscience at 9.2%, Tempus AI at 7.6%, and Absci at 7.0%, together make up roughly 23.8% of the portfolio. Gene-editing names account for about 18%, and AI-driven drug discovery adds another 16%. The fund needs cheap capital, risk appetite, and clinical wins to work. Rates falling and biotech M&A reviving are the environment it is built for.

GNOM makes a broader bet. It holds 51 positions, anchored by cash-flowing names: Illumina at 4.6%, Moderna at 4.3%, and Vertex Pharmaceuticals at 3.8%, alongside Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, and AstraZeneca. Passive rebalancing and index reconstitution dilute single-name blowups. The implicit bet is that genomics as a category compounds even if the flashiest names disappoint.

Where the Difference Shows Up

Over the five-year window, ARKG is down 55.4% from July 2021 through July 2026, while GNOM is down 42.6% over the same stretch. That is the small-cap, unprofitable-biotech tax showing up in real numbers after the 2021 to 2022 rate shock. Over 10 years, ARKG is up 110.3%, capturing the 2020 pandemic surge, while GNOM is down 12.5% since April 2019. In the past 12 months, GNOM’s 55.1% gain edged ARKG’s 53.6%, evidence that large-cap biotech participated in the rally without the whipsaw.

The Practical Comparison

Metric	ARKG	GNOM
Management	Active, discretionary	Passive, Solactive index
Holdings	33	51
Net Assets	$1.4 billion	$75 million
Top Holding Weight	9.2% (Twist Bioscience)	5.7% (Guardant Health)
YTD 2026	+32.0%	+17.0%
5-Year	−55.4%	−42.6%

The asset gap matters. ARKG’s roughly $1.4 billion in net assets gives it far tighter spreads than GNOM’s $75 million. Retirement investors placing larger orders will feel that liquidity difference.

The Verdict

For a retirement-focused investor, GNOM screens as the more defensible core exposure. Its blend of large-cap pharma anchors and small-cap innovators dampens the drawdowns that made ARKG a wealth-destroying position between 2021 and 2023. ARKG fits an investor who already owns broad healthcare exposure and wants a satellite position sized to survive another 50% drawdown while capturing the upside if gene-editing platforms reach commercialization.

What would flip that call? Sustained falling rates plus a wave of biotech acquisitions targeting unprofitable platform companies. In that environment, ARKG’s concentration in the likes of Tempus AI, Twist Bioscience, and CRISPR Therapeutics becomes the feature, not the bug.

Contact [email protected] for any questions or corrections.

Follow 24/7 Wall St. on Google

About the Author Trey Thoelcke →

Trey has been an editor and author at 24/7 Wall St. for more than a decade, where he has published thousands of articles analyzing corporate earnings, dividend stocks, short interest, insider buying, private equity, and market trends. His comprehensive coverage spans the full spectrum of financial markets, from blue-chip stalwarts to emerging growth companies.

Beyond 24/7 Wall St., Trey has created and edited financial content for Benzinga and AOL's BloggingStocks, contributing additional hundreds of articles to the investment community. He previously oversaw the 24/7 Climate Insights site, managing editorial operations and content strategy, and currently oversees and creates content for My Investing News.

Trey's editorial expertise extends across multiple publishing environments. He served as production editor at Dearborn Financial Publishing and development editor at Kaplan, where he helped shape financial education materials. Earlier in his career, he worked as a writer-producer at SVE. His freelance editing portfolio includes work for prestigious clients such as Sage Publications, Rand McNally, the Institute for Supply Management, the American Library Association, Eggplant Literary Productions, and Spiegel.

Outside of financial journalism, Trey writes fiction and has been an active member of the writing community for years, overseeing a long-running critique group and moderating workshop sessions at regional conventions. He lives with his family in an old house in the Midwest.