AIYY vs AMDY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
AIYY and AMDY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. AIYY is YieldMax AI Option Income Strategy ETF, while AMDY is YieldMax AMD Option Income Strategy ETF. AMDY is broader by holdings count, with 19 positions versus 10 for AIYY. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has AIYY ahead on AIQ Score, 36 versus 27.
| Metric | AIYY | AMDY |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.99% | 1% |
| Holdings | 10 | 19 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 111.6% | 78.01% |
| Average volume | 88,246 | 371,316 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -70.9% | -10% |
| YTD return | -57.5% | +13% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 48.6% | 58.6% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -72.3% | -42% |
| Beta | 1.65 | 2.72 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.35 | 0.05 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.02 | 0.07 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 36/100 | 27/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 1/10 |
| Momentum | 39/100 | 21/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 33/100 | 8/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
YieldMax AI Option Income Strategy ETF vs YieldMax AMD Option Income Strategy ETF
AIYY leads
AIYY leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from AMDY.
Fragile: 2 of 3 evidence groups support AIYY, and the lead recently changed hands.
YieldMax AI Option Income Strategy ETF
YieldMax AMD Option Income Strategy ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AIYY over AMDY, 36 versus 27 as of Oct 21, 2026. AIYY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum, while AMDY holds the stronger quality profile. AIYY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor AIYY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. AIYY lead: Reversed — AMDY led by 13 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AIYY now leads by 9.
Compare YieldMax AI Option Income Strategy ETF and YieldMax AMD Option Income Strategy ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
AIYY vs AMDY: 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 | AIYY | AMDY | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.99% | 1% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 10 | 19 | AMDY |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 111.6% | 78.01% | AIYY |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -72.3% | -42% | AMDY |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 48.6% | 58.6% | AIYY |
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 AIYY and AMDY 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.
- Risk Resilience33 vs 8AIYY +25
- Momentum39 vs 21AIYY +18
- Quality36 vs 42AMDY +6
2 of 3 evidence groups favor AIYY. AIYY’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum; AMDY keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
New signals
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.4%)
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
AIYY's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AIYY and AMDY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AIYY (YieldMax AI Option Income Strategy ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
AMDY (YieldMax AMD Option Income Strategy ETF): the counter-case, on quality, technicals.
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 | AIYY | AMDY | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.99% | 1% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 10 | 19 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 88,246 | 371,316 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 48.6% | 58.6% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -72.3% | -42% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.35 | 0.05 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.65 | 2.72 | 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.
AIYY vs AMDY: five-year payout growth
AIYY began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. AMDY began paying distributions in 2023, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | AIYY | AMDY |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $29.256 | $30.699 |
| 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
2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor AIYY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AIYY | 36 vs 27 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | AMDY | Price vs 50-day -2% vs -5.1%; vs 200-day -25.8% vs -1.9% |
| Risk Resilience | AIYY | Risk Resilience 33 vs 8 |
| 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 AIYY and AMDY 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 moderate at 9 points.
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
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 AIYY.
How the comparison changed
99 daily snapshots · Jun 22 – Oct 20AIYY lead: Reversed — AMDY led by 13 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AIYY now leads by 9.
- Today
- AIYY +9
- 36 vs 27
- 7 sessions ago
- AIYY +17
- 46 vs 29
- 30 sessions ago
- AMDY +13
- 34 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- AIYY +13
- 43 vs 30
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 14 when AIYY moved ahead of AMDY.
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.
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral
Only AIYY
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (31.53%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.4%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only AMDY
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.48%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, MACD Bearish Crossover.
AMDY 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.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.41%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +3.05%, 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.
- 1AMDY closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to AIYY's edge.
- 2AMDY's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3AIYY starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4A 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
Split across windows| Metric | AIYY | AMDY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.9% | -13% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.6% | -18.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.3% | -20.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -26.8% | 10.8% |
| Year to date | -57.5% | 13% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -70.9% | -10% |
Technicals
AMDY has the stronger structure| Metric | AIYY | AMDY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46.5 | 24.1 |
| ADX (14) | 12.8 | 21.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2% | -5.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -25.8% | -1.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 34.9% | 39% |
Risk
AIYY is the more resilient| Metric | AIYY | AMDY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.65 | 2.72 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.35 | 0.05 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.02 | 0.07 |
| Max drawdown | -72.3% | -42% |
| Current drawdown | -71.5% | -27.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 48.6% | 58.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.8% | -5.3% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF is more diversified, AIYY or AMDY?
AMDY holds more positions: 19 versus 10 for AIYY.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
The two are within a basis point: 0.99% for AIYY and 1% for AMDY.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
AIYY, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 111.6% against 78.01% for AMDY.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
AMDY has been more volatile over the past year, at 58.6% annualized against 48.6% for AIYY.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
AMDY fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -42% against -72.3% for AIYY.
Compare AIYY and AMDY 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.