AIYY vs NVDY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
AIYY and NVDY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. AIYY is YieldMax AI Option Income Strategy ETF, while NVDY is YieldMax NVDA Option Income Strategy ETF. NVDY is broader by holdings count, with 15 positions versus 10 for AIYY. AIYY has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has NVDY ahead on AIQ Score, 46 versus 36.
| Metric | AIYY | NVDY |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.99% | 1.09% |
| Holdings | 10 | 15 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 111.6% | 53.28% |
| Average volume | 88,246 | 2,081,681 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -70.9% | -24.1% |
| YTD return | -57.5% | -19% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 48.6% | 31.3% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -72.3% | -32.7% |
| Beta | 1.65 | 1.59 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.35 | -0.88 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.02 | -1.33 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 36/100 | 46/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 3/10 |
| Momentum | 39/100 | 25/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 33/100 | 61/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
YieldMax AI Option Income Strategy ETF vs YieldMax NVDA Option Income Strategy ETF
NVDY leads
NVDY leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 22 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 3 evidence groups support NVDY, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
YieldMax AI Option Income Strategy ETF
YieldMax NVDA Option Income Strategy ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NVDY over AIYY, 46 versus 36 as of Oct 21, 2026. NVDY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while AIYY holds the stronger momentum profile. NVDY also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor NVDY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. NVDY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare YieldMax AI Option Income Strategy ETF and YieldMax NVDA Option Income Strategy ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
AIYY vs NVDY: 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 | NVDY | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.99% | 1.09% | AIYY |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 10 | 15 | NVDY |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 111.6% | 53.28% | AIYY |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -72.3% | -32.7% | NVDY |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 48.6% | 31.3% | NVDY |
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 NVDY 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 61NVDY +28
- Quality36 vs 55NVDY +19
- Momentum39 vs 25AIYY +14
3 of 3 evidence groups favor NVDY. NVDY’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; AIYY keeps a meaningful momentum 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%)
No factor moved materially.
New signals
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
NVDY's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AIYY and NVDY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
NVDY (YieldMax NVDA Option Income Strategy ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
AIYY (YieldMax AI Option Income Strategy ETF): the counter-case, on momentum — but at materially higher volatility, 34.9% against 21.2%.
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 | NVDY | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.99% | 1.09% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 10 | 15 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 88,246 | 2,081,681 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 48.6% | 31.3% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -72.3% | -32.7% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.35 | -0.88 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.65 | 1.59 | 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 NVDY: five-year payout growth
AIYY began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. NVDY began paying distributions in 2023, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | AIYY | NVDY |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $29.256 | $12.142 |
| 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
3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor NVDY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | NVDY | 36 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | NVDY | Price vs 50-day -2% vs -4.1%; vs 200-day -25.8% vs -10.8% |
| Risk Resilience | NVDY | Risk Resilience 33 vs 61 |
| 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 NVDY 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 10 points.
- 3 of 3 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 NVDY.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20NVDY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- NVDY +10
- 36 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 46 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- NVDY +22
- 34 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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%)
1 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only NVDY
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, 52-Week Low Proximity, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
NVDY leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
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 +2.03%, 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.
- 1AIYY closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to NVDY's edge.
- 2AIYY's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3NVDY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 5 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 12 points over 30 sessions, and a further 10-point move would eliminate NVDY's advantage entirely.
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 | NVDY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.9% | -5.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.6% | -7.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.3% | -7.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -26.8% | -15% |
| Year to date | -57.5% | -19% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -70.9% | -24.1% |
Technicals
NVDY has the stronger structure| Metric | AIYY | NVDY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46.5 | 28.4 |
| ADX (14) | 12.8 | 19.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2% | -4.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -25.8% | -10.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 34.9% | 21.2% |
Risk
NVDY is the more resilient| Metric | AIYY | NVDY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.65 | 1.59 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.35 | -0.88 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.02 | -1.33 |
| Max drawdown | -72.3% | -32.7% |
| Current drawdown | -71.5% | -31.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 48.6% | 31.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.8% | -3.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF is more diversified, AIYY or NVDY?
NVDY holds more positions: 15 versus 10 for AIYY.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
AIYY has the lower expense ratio, 0.99% a year against 1.09% for NVDY.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
AIYY, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 111.6% against 53.28% for NVDY.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
AIYY has been more volatile over the past year, at 48.6% annualized against 31.3% for NVDY.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
NVDY fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -32.7% against -72.3% for AIYY.
Compare AIYY and NVDY 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.