Yatırımcı.AI

AMZ vs TTA Fund Comparison

Price, period returns, size, investor count and risk score of AMZ (Allıanz Yaşam ve Emeklilik A.Ş. Altın Emeklilik Yatırım Fonu) and TTA (İş Portföy Altın Fonu) side by side.

AMZTTA
StockFund

If you had invested TRY 10,000

Metric comparison

AMZ vs TTA Fund Comparison
MetricAMZTTACategory median
Daily0.47%0.53%0.48%
1 week−1.55%−1.45%−1.62%
1 month−5.59%−5.34%−5.37%
3 months10.32%8.82%10.27%
6 months1.97%0.85%2.08%
YTD6.95%0.60%8.02%
1 year28.42%19.72%27.56%
3 years287.47%247.54%287.47%
Returns are based on prices as of September 28, 2026; the fund with the higher return or the lower risk score counts as the leader.

Popular comparisons

Related pages

About the AMZ vs TTA comparison

The price, returns, size and risk of AMZ (Allıanz Yaşam ve Emeklilik A.Ş. Altın Emeklilik Yatırım Fonu) and TTA (İş Portföy Altın Fonu) are compared side by side as of September 28, 2026. Of the 10 metrics compared, AMZ leads in 7 and TTA leads in 3. AMZ is a Gold Fund fund managed by Allıanz Yaşam ve Emeklilik A.Ş.; TTA is a Gold Fund fund managed by İş Portföy Yönetimi A.Ş..

Highlights: Daily: TTA leads (0.53% vs 0.47%). 1 week: TTA leads (−1.45% vs −1.55%). 1 month: TTA leads (−5.34% vs −5.59%). 3 months: AMZ leads (10.32% vs 8.82%). 6 months: AMZ leads (1.97% vs 0.85%). YTD: AMZ leads (6.95% vs 0.60%). 1 year: AMZ leads (28.42% vs 19.72%). 3 years: AMZ leads (287.47% vs 247.54%). Size (TRY): AMZ leads (141.9B vs 25.7B). Investors: AMZ leads (714,776 vs 224,278).

Frequently asked questions

Year to date AMZ returned 6.95% and TTA returned 0.60%; over the last year AMZ returned 28.42% and TTA returned 19.72%. Over the last month AMZ returned −5.59% and TTA returned −5.34%. Past performance does not indicate future returns.

As of September 28, 2026, AMZ has a size of TRY 141.9B with 714,776 investors, while TTA has a size of TRY 25.7B with 224,278 investors. AMZ leads in size and AMZ leads in investor count.

The CMB risk score of AMZ is 6 out of 7 and that of TTA is 6. The risk score reflects the historical volatility of the fund price; 1 is the lowest and 7 the highest risk. A lower score means less volatility, not a guarantee of higher returns.