AIYY vs CHPY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
AIYY and CHPY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. AIYY is YieldMax AI Option Income Strategy ETF, while CHPY is YieldMax Semiconductor Portfolio Option Income ETF. CHPY is broader by holdings count, with 94 positions versus 10 for AIYY. AIYY has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has AIYY ahead on AIQ Score, 36 versus 33.
What is the main difference between AIYY and CHPY?
CHPY holds 94 positions to AIYY's 10.
| Metric | AIYY | CHPY |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.99% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 10 | 94 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 111.6% | 45.74% |
| Average volume | 88,246 | 700,213 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -70.9% | +5.8% |
| YTD return | -57.5% | +9.2% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 48.6% | 40.3% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -72.3% | -32.9% |
| Beta | 1.65 | 2.30 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.35 | 0.24 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.02 | 0.34 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 36/100 | 33/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 1/10 |
| Momentum | 39/100 | 21/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 33/100 | 28/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
YieldMax AI Option Income Strategy ETF vs YieldMax Semiconductor Portfolio Option Income ETF
AIYY leads
AIYY leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from CHPY.
Fragile: 1 of 3 evidence groups support AIYY, and the lead recently changed hands.
YieldMax AI Option Income Strategy ETF
YieldMax Semiconductor Portfolio Option Income ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AIYY over CHPY, 36 versus 33 as of Oct 21, 2026. AIYY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while CHPY holds the stronger quality profile. AIYY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor AIYY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. AIYY lead: Reversed — CHPY led by 10 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AIYY now leads by 3.
Compare YieldMax AI Option Income Strategy ETF and YieldMax Semiconductor Portfolio Option Income ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
AIYY vs CHPY: 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 | CHPY | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.99% | 1.03% | AIYY |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 10 | 94 | CHPY |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 111.6% | 45.74% | AIYY |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -72.3% | -32.9% | CHPY |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 48.6% | 40.3% | CHPY |
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 CHPY 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.
- Momentum39 vs 21AIYY +18
- Quality36 vs 50CHPY +14
- Risk Resilience33 vs 28AIYY +5
1 of 3 evidence groups favor AIYY. AIYY’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; CHPY 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: Value -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.10%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
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 CHPY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AIYY (YieldMax AI Option Income Strategy ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
CHPY (YieldMax Semiconductor Portfolio Option Income 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 | CHPY | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.99% | 1.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 10 | 94 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 88,246 | 700,213 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 48.6% | 40.3% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -72.3% | -32.9% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.35 | 0.24 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.65 | 2.30 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
AIYY vs CHPY: five-year payout growth
AIYY began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. CHPY began paying distributions in 2025, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | AIYY | CHPY |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $29.256 | $15.679 |
| 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
1 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 | Even | 36 vs 33 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | CHPY | Price vs 50-day -2% vs -9.3%; vs 200-day -25.8% vs -10.2% |
| Risk Resilience | AIYY | Risk Resilience 33 vs 28 |
| 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 CHPY 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 3 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 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
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20AIYY lead: Reversed — CHPY led by 10 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AIYY now leads by 3.
- Today
- AIYY +3
- 36 vs 33
- 7 sessions ago
- AIYY +14
- 46 vs 32
- 30 sessions ago
- CHPY +10
- 34 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 18 when CHPY moved ahead of AIYY.
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
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.83%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.4%)
1 bullish / 4 bearish, conflicted
Only CHPY
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
CHPY 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 +0.87%, 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.
- 1CHPY closes the Momentum gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to AIYY's edge.
- 2CHPY's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend 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 | CHPY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.9% | -8.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.6% | -14.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.3% | -18.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -26.8% | -6% |
| Year to date | -57.5% | 9.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -70.9% | 5.8% |
Technicals
CHPY has the stronger structure| Metric | AIYY | CHPY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46.5 | 20.6 |
| ADX (14) | 12.8 | 23.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2% | -9.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -25.8% | -10.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 34.9% | 27.8% |
Risk
AIYY is the more resilient| Metric | AIYY | CHPY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.65 | 2.3 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.35 | 0.24 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.02 | 0.34 |
| Max drawdown | -72.3% | -32.9% |
| Current drawdown | -71.5% | -32.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 48.6% | 40.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.8% | -4.3% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between AIYY and CHPY?
CHPY holds 94 positions to AIYY's 10.
Which ETF is more diversified, AIYY or CHPY?
CHPY holds more positions: 94 versus 10 for AIYY.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
AIYY has the lower expense ratio, 0.99% a year against 1.03% for CHPY.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
AIYY, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 111.6% against 45.74% for CHPY.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
AIYY has been more volatile over the past year, at 48.6% annualized against 40.3% for CHPY.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
CHPY fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -32.9% against -72.3% for AIYY.
Compare AIYY and CHPY 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.