ARKG vs GNOM: Genomics ETFs Compared
Two ETFs dominate retail genomics investing: ARK Genomic Revolution (ARKG) and Global X Genomics & Biotechnology (GNOM). Both hold CRISPR Therapeutics, Beam Therapeutics, and Intellia Therapeutics — but they differ sharply in management style, cost, concentration, and approach. ARKG is actively managed by Cathie Wood's team with high-conviction concentrated bets. GNOM passively tracks the Solactive Genomics Index with broader, rules-based diversification. Choosing between them depends on whether you want a fund manager's judgment or systematic market exposure.
Last updated: March 1, 2026
ARKG (ARK Genomic Revolution ETF)
Actively managed by ARK Invest (Cathie Wood). Takes concentrated, high-conviction positions in ~35 genomics and biotech companies. The largest and most well-known genomics ETF, peaking at ~$9B AUM in 2021.
GNOM (Global X Genomics & Biotechnology ETF)
Passively managed ETF tracking the Solactive Genomics Index. Holds ~47 companies across gene editing, genomic sequencing, genetic medicine, computational genomics, and diagnostics. Rules-based selection eliminates active manager risk.
Key Specifications
| Feature | ARKG (ARK Genomic Revolution ETF) | GNOM (Global X Genomics & Biotechnology ETF) |
|---|---|---|
| Ticker | ARKG | GNOM |
| Expense Ratio | 0.75% | 0.50% |
| AUM | ~$1.2 billion | ~$47 million |
| Holdings | ~35 stocks | ~47 stocks |
| Management Style | Active (ARK Invest) | Passive (Solactive Genomics Index) |
| 2025 Return | +23.0% | N/A |
| Top Gene Editing Holdings | CRSP, BEAM, NTLA, Twist Bioscience, 10x Genomics | CRSP, Vertex, NTLA, BEAM, Illumina |
| Exchange | NYSE Arca | NASDAQ |
| Inception | October 2014 | April 2019 |
ARKG (ARK Genomic Revolution ETF)
Advantages
- Largest AUM (~$1.2B) — best liquidity among genomics ETFs
- Active management can capitalize on catalysts (FDA approvals, trial data) faster than indexes
- Highest concentration in gene editing pure-plays (CRSP, BEAM, NTLA are top holdings)
- Strong brand recognition and institutional following
- ARK publishes daily trade notifications — full transparency on buys/sells
Limitations
- Highest expense ratio (0.75%) — 50% more expensive than GNOM
- Concentrated portfolio (~35 stocks) increases volatility and single-stock risk
- Significant drawdown from 2021 peak ($9B → $1.2B AUM) has shaken investor confidence
- Active manager risk: Cathie Wood's conviction calls don't always pay off
- High portfolio turnover generates more taxable events
GNOM (Global X Genomics & Biotechnology ETF)
Advantages
- Lower expense ratio (0.50%) — saves 25 basis points vs ARKG annually
- Broader diversification (~47 stocks vs ~35) reduces single-stock risk
- Rules-based index methodology removes active manager bias
- Solactive Genomics Index covers full genomics value chain including tools and diagnostics
- Lower portfolio turnover means fewer taxable distributions
Limitations
- Very small AUM (~$47M) — potential liquidity concerns and wider bid-ask spreads
- Declining inflows (-$18M net AUM change over past year) — fund closure risk
- Passive management cannot react to catalysts or avoid companies with failed trials
- Less pure-play gene editing exposure — includes broader genomics and diagnostics
- Less institutional following and analyst coverage than ARKG
The Verdict
For most investors, ARKG is the better choice despite its higher cost — its $1.2B AUM provides reliable liquidity, and active management adds value in a sector where binary FDA catalysts can move stocks 30-50% in a day. GNOM's lower expense ratio is attractive in theory, but its tiny $47M AUM creates real liquidity risk, and declining inflows raise concerns about fund viability. If you want low-cost passive genomics exposure, consider iShares IDNA ($143M AUM, 0.47% expense ratio) as a more stable alternative to GNOM. The ideal approach for a diversified genomics allocation: ARKG as a core position for gene editing conviction, supplemented by XBI (broad biotech, 0.35%) for stability.