AIPI vs FEPI: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
AIPI and FEPI are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. AIPI is REX AI Equity Premium Income ETF, while FEPI is REX FANG & Innovation Equity Premium Income ETF. AIPI is broader by holdings count, with 128 positions versus 66 for FEPI. FEPI is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has FEPI ahead on AIQ Score, 42 versus 40.
What is the main difference between AIPI and FEPI?
AIPI and FEPI both concentrate in Technology, at 91% and 68% of assets, and 39% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | AIPI | FEPI |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.65% | 0.65% |
| Holdings | 128 | 66 |
| Top-10 concentration | 54.1% | 66.5% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 39.67% | 26.4% |
| Average volume | 190,453 | 201,586 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -16% | -12.2% |
| YTD return | -10.4% | -9% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 20.9% | 20.6% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -27.8% | -23.3% |
| Beta | 1.19 | 1.30 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.95 | -0.75 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.42 | -1.14 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 40/100 | 42/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 2/10 |
| Momentum | 27/100 | 29/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 75/100 | 75/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
REX AI Equity Premium Income ETF vs REX FANG & Innovation Equity Premium Income ETF
FEPI leads
FEPI leads by 2 AIQ points, having only recently taken the lead back from AIPI.
Fragile: 0 of 4 evidence groups support FEPI, and the lead recently changed hands.
REX AI Equity Premium Income ETF
REX FANG & Innovation Equity Premium Income ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FEPI over AIPI, 42 versus 40 as of Oct 21, 2026. FEPI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 0 of 4 covered evidence groups favor FEPI today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. FEPI lead: Reversed — AIPI led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FEPI now leads by 2.
Compare REX AI Equity Premium Income ETF and REX FANG & Innovation Equity Premium Income ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
AIPI vs FEPI: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | AIPI | FEPI | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.65% | 0.65% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 128 | 66 | AIPI |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 54.1% | 66.5% | AIPI |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 39.67% | 26.4% | AIPI |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -27.8% | -23.3% | FEPI |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 20.9% | 20.6% | Similar |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare AIPI and FEPI against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Quality43 vs 45Even
- Value31 vs 33Even
- Momentum27 vs 29Even
- Risk Resilience75 vs 75Even
0 of 4 evidence groups favor FEPI. Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Value -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Quality +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
FEPI's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AIPI and FEPI both carry a full feed there.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | AIPI | FEPI | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.65% | 0.65% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 128 | 66 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 190,453 | 201,586 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 20.9% | 20.6% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -27.8% | -23.3% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.95 | -0.75 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.19 | 1.30 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
How much of the same holdings they own
AIPI and FEPI share 39.48% of their weighted exposure across 16 common holdings.
21 holdings are unique to AIPI, and 7 holdings are unique to FEPI. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
FEPI is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 66.52% of the fund, against 54.08% for AIPI (66 holdings vs 128). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | AIPI | FEPI | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA CORP | 9.62% | 6.25% | 6.25% |
| PLTRPALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC. CLASS A | 9.51% | 6.01% | 6.01% |
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY INC | 3.3% | 6.6% | 3.3% |
| METAMETA PLATFORMS INC | 3.22% | 7.37% | 3.22% |
| AMDADVANCED MICRO DEVICES INC | 3.08% | 6.64% | 3.08% |
| AAPLAPPLE INC | 3.08% | 6.6% | 3.08% |
| INTCINTEL CORP | 2.92% | 6.58% | 2.92% |
| MSFTMICROSOFT CORP | 2.91% | 6.41% | 2.91% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What AIPI adds that FEPI doesn’t
| Holding | AIPI | FEPI |
|---|---|---|
| CRWDCrowdstrike Holdings Inc. Class A | 7.2% | Not held |
| ARMARM HOLDINGS PLC | 6.03% | Not held |
| ALABASTERA LABS INC | 4.8% | Not held |
| CRMSALESFORCE.COM INC | 3.73% | Not held |
| SMCISuper Micro Computer Inc | 3.55% | Not held |
| QCOMQUALCOMM INC | 3.12% | Not held |
What FEPI adds that AIPI doesn’t
| Holding | FEPI | AIPI |
|---|---|---|
| METAMETA PLATFORMS INC | 7.37% | 3.22% |
| TSLATesla Inc. | 6.79% | Not held |
| ORCLORACLE CORP | 6.67% | Not held |
| AMDADVANCED MICRO DEVICES INC | 6.64% | 3.08% |
| SNDKSANDISK CORP/DE SNDKV | 6.61% | Not held |
| AAPLAPPLE INC | 6.6% | 3.08% |
Each list is a fund’s largest positions by weight that the other fund does not hold, or holds at less than half the weight.
AIPI vs FEPI: five-year payout growth
AIPI began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. FEPI began paying distributions in 2023, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | AIPI | FEPI |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $15.155 | $11.608 |
| Peer rank | not ranked | not ranked |
Split-adjusted annual distributions, 2020–2025. Research as of Sep 19, 2026. Yield and expense ratio above are current values, not part of this window.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
0 of 4 covered evidence groups favor FEPI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 40 vs 42 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 31 vs 33 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -2.4% vs -2.1%; vs 200-day -2.4% vs -3% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 75 vs 75 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AIPI and FEPI and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on FEPI.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20FEPI lead: Reversed — AIPI led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FEPI now leads by 2.
- Today
- FEPI +2
- 40 vs 42
- 7 sessions ago
- FEPI +2
- 40 vs 42
- 30 sessions ago
- AIPI +2
- 51 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Sep 28 when AIPI moved ahead of FEPI.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only AIPI
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.88%)
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral
Only FEPI
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.71%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Keltner Channel Breakdown, MACD Bearish Crossover.
AIPI is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.86%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.22%, AIQ 0 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1AIPI's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 2FEPI starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 3A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
FEPI leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AIPI | FEPI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.9% | -4.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5% | -4.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2% | 0.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -1% | -3.9% |
| Year to date | -10.4% | -9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -16% | -12.2% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | AIPI | FEPI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 33 | 36.4 |
| ADX (14) | 23.3 | 20.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.4% | -2.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.4% | -3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.3% | 17.4% |
Risk
Split| Metric | AIPI | FEPI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.19 | 1.3 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.95 | -0.75 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.42 | -1.14 |
| Max drawdown | -27.8% | -23.3% |
| Current drawdown | -20.2% | -16.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 20.9% | 20.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -2.2% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between AIPI and FEPI?
AIPI and FEPI both concentrate in Technology, at 91% and 68% of assets, and 39% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do AIPI and FEPI overlap?
AIPI and FEPI share 39.48% of their weighted exposure across 16 common holdings. 21 holdings are unique to AIPI, and 7 holdings are unique to FEPI. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, AIPI or FEPI?
AIPI holds more positions: 128 versus 66 for FEPI.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
Neither: both charge 0.65% a year.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
AIPI, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 39.67% against 26.4% for FEPI.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 20.9% annualized for AIPI and 20.6% for FEPI.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
FEPI fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -23.3% against -27.8% for AIPI.
Compare AIPI and FEPI with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.