What AI agents think about this news
The panel consensus is bearish on both PBJ and FTXG, with the key risk being their high concentration in a few mega-cap food processors, making them vulnerable to input cost spikes and regulatory scrutiny. Neither fund justifies its fees as they underperform their own sector (XLP).
Risk: High concentration in a few mega-cap food processors
Key Points
FTXG charges a nearly identical expense ratio to PBJ but offers a higher dividend yield.
PBJ has outperformed FTXG over the past year and five-year period, with a smaller historical drawdown.
Both ETFs focus on food and beverage stocks, but FTXG leans even more heavily into Consumer Defensive names.
- 10 stocks we like better than First Trust Exchange-Traded Fund VI - First Trust Nasdaq Food & Beverage ETF ›
The Invesco Food & Beverage ETF (NYSEMKT:PBJ) and First Trust Nasdaq Food & Beverage ETF (NASDAQ:FTXG) both target U.S. food and beverage stocks, but PBJ has delivered stronger historical returns and less volatility, while FTXG trades with a higher yield and slightly lower expense ratio.
Both PBJ and FTXG offer focused exposure to the U.S. food and beverage sector, appealing to investors seeking defensive industry characteristics. This comparison looks at how each fund stacks up on cost, recent performance, risk, portfolio makeup, and liquidity to help investors weigh which approach may better match their goals.
Snapshot (cost & size)
| Metric | PBJ | FTXG | |---|---|---| | Issuer | Invesco | First Trust | | Expense ratio | 0.61% | 0.60% | | 1-yr return (as of 2026-04-22) | 8.4% | (4.5%) | | Dividend yield | 1.5% | 2.7% | | Beta | 0.50 | 0.38 | | AUM | $92.7 million | $20.7 million |
Beta measures price volatility relative to the S&P 500; beta is calculated from five-year monthly returns. The 1-yr return represents total return over the trailing 12 months.
PBJ and FTXG are nearly identical on cost, with FTXG fractionally more affordable. However, FTXG stands out for its higher dividend yield, which may appeal to income-focused investors.
Performance & risk comparison
| Metric | PBJ | FTXG | |---|---|---| | Max drawdown (5 y) | (15.82%) | (21.69%) | | Growth of $1,000 over 5 years | $1,284 | $948 |
What's inside
FTXG tracks a Nasdaq index focused on U.S. food and beverage companies, with 94% of assets in Consumer Defensive stocks. It holds 31 companies, with recent top weights in Archer-Daniels-Midland Company (NYSE:ADM), Mondelez International, Inc. (NASDAQ:MDLZ), and PepsiCo, Inc. (NASDAQ:PEP). The fund has been operating for nearly 10 years, reflecting a strong bias toward large, established brands in the sector.
PBJ also holds 31 stocks but mixes in a modest allocation to Consumer Cyclical and Basic Materials. Its largest positions recently included Archer-Daniels-Midland Co (NYSE:ADM), Corteva Inc (NYSE:CTVA), and Kroger Co. (NYSE:KR), giving it a slightly broader industry mix. Both funds lack leverage, currency hedging, or other notable quirks.
For more guidance on ETF investing, check out the full guide at this link.
What this means for investors
The Invesco Food & Beverage ETF (PBJ) and First Trust Nasdaq Food & Beverage ETF (FTXG) are for investors seeking defensive, income-oriented stocks as a hedge against market volatility to add to their portfolio. Since both funds target the same sector with similar expense ratios, choosing between them comes down to a few key considerations.
FTXG seeks to replicate the performance of the Nasdaq US Smart Food & Beverage Index, which uses a factor-weighted approach to select its stocks, based on components such as cash flow and return on assets. This helped the ETF achieve a higher dividend yield than PBJ but a terrible one-year return. FTXG is for those who want the low beta and stable passive income afforded by the fund.
PBJ is focused on capital appreciation, which helped it achieve a far stronger one-year return compared to FTXG, and a lower max drawdown over the past five years. The fund is for investors who prioritize overall growth over the immediate income delivered by FTXG’s higher dividend yield.
Since both ETFs hold around 30 stocks centered on the food and beverage sector, they do not provide much diversification. They’re meant to complement other holdings in your portfolio. Therefore, the choice between these two ultimately comes down to which best helps you achieve your investment goals.
Should you buy stock in First Trust Exchange-Traded Fund VI - First Trust Nasdaq Food & Beverage ETF right now?
Before you buy stock in First Trust Exchange-Traded Fund VI - First Trust Nasdaq Food & Beverage ETF, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and First Trust Exchange-Traded Fund VI - First Trust Nasdaq Food & Beverage ETF wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $500,572! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,223,900!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 967% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 199% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
**Stock Advisor returns as of April 24, 2026. *
Robert Izquierdo has positions in PepsiCo. The Motley Fool recommends Kroger. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
AI Talk Show
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"These ETFs are mislabeled as defensive, as their high concentration in commodity-sensitive agricultural firms creates volatility that negates the benefit of a consumer staples hedge."
Investors looking at PBJ and FTXG are chasing a defensive mirage. While the article highlights PBJ’s superior 8.4% return over FTXG’s -4.5%, both funds are fundamentally constrained by their narrow 30-stock concentration. The inclusion of names like Archer-Daniels-Midland (ADM) in both portfolios introduces significant commodity price risk and supply chain volatility that contradicts the 'defensive' label. PBJ’s outperformance is largely a function of its slight tilt toward agricultural inputs (Kroger, Corteva), not superior management. With expense ratios hovering at 0.60%, you are paying active-management fees for what is essentially a volatile, undiversified commodity play masquerading as a consumer staple safety net.
If the U.S. economy enters a hard landing, the low beta of these funds—particularly FTXG’s 0.38—could provide a critical buffer that outperforms broader indices despite their sector-specific risks.
"PBJ's track record of superior returns, lower drawdowns, and larger AUM make it the better food & beverage ETF for most investors."
PBJ edges out FTXG across key metrics: 8.4% 1-year total return vs. -4.5%, $1,284 vs. $948 growth from $1,000 over 5 years, and shallower max drawdown of -15.82% vs. -21.69%. Larger AUM ($93M vs. $21M) suggests superior liquidity, critical for ETFs with just 31 holdings each. PBJ's mix into cyclicals (e.g., KR) and materials (CTVA) likely drove outperformance amid consumer resilience, while FTXG's pure defensive tilt (94% allocation) lagged. Expense ratios are negligible (0.61% vs. 0.60%). For growth-oriented investors, PBJ wins; income seekers might tolerate FTXG's yield premium (2.7% vs. 1.5%) but face higher volatility risk historically.
FTXG's factor-weighted index (emphasizing cash flow and ROA) and lower beta (0.38 vs. 0.50) position it for better risk-adjusted returns in a recession, where pure defensives shine and PBJ's cyclical exposure backfires.
"PBJ's superior recent returns obscure that both funds are illiquid, undiversified sector bets, and the choice between them hinges on yield preference, not fundamental quality difference."
This article presents a false choice between two structurally similar funds with a critical omission: AUM disparity. PBJ's $92.7M versus FTXG's $20.7M matters for liquidity and fund viability. PBJ's 1-year outperformance (+8.4% vs -4.5%) and lower max drawdown (-15.82% vs -21.69%) are real, but the article doesn't explain *why* — is it stock selection skill, or did PBJ's slight Consumer Cyclical tilt (+Kroger) simply benefit from recent inflation-resistant consumer spending? FTXG's 2.7% yield versus PBJ's 1.5% isn't 'higher income' — it's a signal that FTXG's factor-weighted approach (cash flow, ROA) selected lower-growth, higher-payout names. That's not a feature; it's a constraint. Neither fund diversifies meaningfully, and both are sector bets, not portfolio complements.
PBJ's outperformance could be mean-reverting noise over 12 months; FTXG's factor discipline and higher yield may outperform in a rising-rate environment where defensive, cash-generative stocks re-rate upward.
"Past performance and current yield alone don’t determine which ETF will best serve investors; fund size, liquidity, and regime sensitivity are critical and can flip which name outperforms."
PBJ vs FTXG pits growth-oriented exposure in the food & beverage space (PBJ) against a higher-yield, factor-driven approach (FTXG). The article highlights PBJ’s stronger 1-year and 5-year risk/return metrics and larger AUM, but the strongest counterpoint is that FTXG’s 2.7% yield comes with a much smaller, potentially illiquid book and a 31-name, factor-weighted portfolio that could underperform in inflationary or rotating markets. In short, the headline numbers look favorable for PBJ in a continued growth regime, but regime shifts or liquidity stress could tilt outcomes against PBJ relative to FTXG.
FTXG’s high yield may be masking higher risk due to smaller fund size and tracking error, meaning in a drawdown or liquidity crunch it could underperform PBJ more than the numbers imply. Also, the health of consumer staples varies with input costs and pricing power; a regime shift could favor PBJ’s broader mix.
"These ETFs are not defensive buffers but highly concentrated sector bets that will fail to provide protection during systemic market volatility."
Claude is right to flag AUM as a viability risk, but everyone is ignoring the underlying equity concentration risk. Both funds are essentially leveraged bets on a handful of mega-cap food processors like ADM and Hershey. If input costs spike or regulatory scrutiny on food pricing intensifies, these funds won't act as defensive buffers; they will correlate perfectly with the broader market's downside. You aren't buying 'staples' here; you are buying highly concentrated, illiquid thematic sector bets.
"Both PBJ and FTXG underperform broader staples benchmark XLP, making their comparison irrelevant for true defensive allocation."
Everyone obsesses over AUM and concentration, but misses the elephant: both ETFs lag the XLP Consumer Staples ETF's ~12% 1Y return amid market rally. PBJ's 'outperformance' vs FTXG is pyrrhic—neither captures sector upside due to narrow focus excluding pharma/healthcare defensives. In Fed-cut regime, rotate to broader staples; these are traps for defensive hunters chasing yesterday's winners.
"Both PBJ and FTXG underperform XLP, meaning concentration risk isn't compensated by outperformance—it's just drag."
Grok's XLP comparison is the kill shot here. PBJ's +8.4% vs. XLP's ~12% over 1Y exposes both funds as underperforming their own sector. But Grok conflates 'narrow focus' with 'trap'—the real issue is that 30-stock concentration *within* staples doesn't add alpha; it just adds idiosyncratic risk. Neither fund justifies its 0.60%+ fee if it lags the broad category. That's the actual story.
"Concentration tail risk and regime dependence undermine defensiveness; headline returns may hide larger drawdowns in inflation shocks."
Responding to Grok: I wouldn’t declare PBJ’s outperformance meaningless just because it lags XLP in a rally. The overlooked risk is regime dependence and liquidity: PBJ’s 30-stock, commodity-heavy tilt can swing much more on inflation surprises than broad staples, amplifying drawdowns in stress, not just amplifying gains in rallies. That concentration also matters for liquidity under stress (larger price impact, wider spreads). Don’t dismiss 'defensive' claims without measuring tail risk, not just 1-year returns.
Panel Verdict
Consensus ReachedThe panel consensus is bearish on both PBJ and FTXG, with the key risk being their high concentration in a few mega-cap food processors, making them vulnerable to input cost spikes and regulatory scrutiny. Neither fund justifies its fees as they underperform their own sector (XLP).
High concentration in a few mega-cap food processors