AMDY vs CONY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
AMDY and CONY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. AMDY is YieldMax AMD Option Income Strategy ETF, while CONY is YieldMax COIN Option Income Strategy ETF. AMDY has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has CONY ahead on AIQ Score, 34 versus 27.
| Metric | AMDY | CONY |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 1% | 1.04% |
| Holdings | 19 | 18 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 78.01% | 120.75% |
| Average volume | 371,316 | 507,413 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -10% | -71.1% |
| YTD return | +13% | -53.8% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 58.6% | 62% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -42% | -73% |
| Beta | 2.72 | 2.53 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.05 | -1.78 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.07 | -2.99 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 27/100 | 34/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 1/10 | 1/10 |
| Momentum | 21/100 | 30/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 8/100 | 15/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
YieldMax AMD Option Income Strategy ETF vs YieldMax COIN Option Income Strategy ETF
CONY leads
CONY leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from AMDY.
Fragile: 2 of 3 evidence groups support CONY, and the lead recently changed hands.
YieldMax AMD Option Income Strategy ETF
YieldMax COIN Option Income Strategy ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CONY over AMDY, 34 versus 27 as of Oct 21, 2026. CONY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. CONY also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor CONY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. CONY lead: Reversed — AMDY led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CONY now leads by 7.
Compare YieldMax AMD Option Income Strategy ETF and YieldMax COIN Option Income Strategy ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
AMDY vs CONY: 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 | AMDY | CONY | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 1% | 1.04% | AMDY |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 19 | 18 | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 78.01% | 120.75% | CONY |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -42% | -73% | AMDY |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 58.6% | 62% | AMDY |
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 AMDY and CONY 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.
- Momentum21 vs 30CONY +9
- Risk Resilience8 vs 15CONY +7
- Quality42 vs 46CONY +4
2 of 3 evidence groups favor CONY. CONY’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
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.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
New signals
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.7%)
CONY's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AMDY and CONY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CONY (YieldMax COIN Option Income Strategy ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
AMDY (YieldMax AMD Option Income Strategy ETF): the counter-case, on 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 | AMDY | CONY | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 1% | 1.04% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 19 | 18 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 371,316 | 507,413 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 58.6% | 62% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -42% | -73% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.05 | -1.78 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 2.72 | 2.53 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
How much of the same holdings they own
AMDY and CONY share 59.51% of their weighted exposure across 5 common holdings.
1 holding is unique to AMDY, and every CONY holding is also in AMDY. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | AMDY | CONY | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States Treasury Bill 10/15/2026 | 17.63% | 16.58% | 16.58% |
| United States Treasury Bill 02/18/2027 | 14.43% | 19.01% | 14.43% |
| United States Treasury Bill 12/10/2026 | 13.62% | 16.75% | 13.62% |
| United States Treasury Note/Bond 2.375% 05/15/2027 | 12.85% | 22.93% | 12.85% |
| First American Government Obligations Fund 12/01/2031 | 2.02% | 2.47% | 2.02% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What AMDY adds that CONY doesn’t
| Holding | AMDY | CONY |
|---|---|---|
| United States Treasury Bill 07/08/2027 | 16.24% | Not held |
What CONY adds that AMDY doesn’t
CONY has no position of 0.01% or more that AMDY lacks or holds at under half the weight.
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.
AMDY vs CONY: five-year payout growth
AMDY began paying distributions in 2023, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. CONY began paying distributions in 2023, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | AMDY | CONY |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $30.699 | $75.578 |
| 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 CONY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CONY | 27 vs 34 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | AMDY | Price vs 50-day -5.1% vs -5.1%; vs 200-day -1.9% vs -26.9% |
| Risk Resilience | CONY | Risk Resilience 8 vs 15 |
| 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 AMDY and CONY 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 7 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 CONY.
How the comparison changed
99 daily snapshots · Jun 22 – Oct 20CONY lead: Reversed — AMDY led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CONY now leads by 7.
- Today
- CONY +7
- 27 vs 34
- 7 sessions ago
- CONY +2
- 29 vs 31
- 30 sessions ago
- AMDY +6
- 47 vs 41
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 30 vs 30
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 9 when AMDY moved ahead of CONY.
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.
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
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral
Only CONY
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (25.76%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.7%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, 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.
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).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +3.19%, AIQ +2 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 Momentum gap — currently 9 points behind, the largest single contributor to CONY's edge.
- 2AMDY's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3CONY 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 | AMDY | CONY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -13% | -5.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -18.7% | -15.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -20.4% | -10.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 10.8% | -34.9% |
| Year to date | 13% | -53.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -10% | -71.1% |
Technicals
AMDY has the stronger structure| Metric | AMDY | CONY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 24.1 | 36.1 |
| ADX (14) | 21.1 | 15.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.1% | -5.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.9% | -26.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 39% | 39.7% |
Risk
CONY is the more resilient| Metric | AMDY | CONY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.72 | 2.53 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.05 | -1.78 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.07 | -2.99 |
| Max drawdown | -42% | -73% |
| Current drawdown | -27.8% | -72.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 58.6% | 62% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.3% | -6.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
How much do AMDY and CONY overlap?
AMDY and CONY share 59.51% of their weighted exposure across 5 common holdings. 1 holding is unique to AMDY, and every CONY holding is also in AMDY. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
Which ETF is more diversified, AMDY or CONY?
They hold a similar number of positions: 19 for AMDY and 18 for CONY.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
AMDY has the lower expense ratio, 1% a year against 1.04% for CONY.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
CONY, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 120.75% against 78.01% for AMDY.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
CONY has been more volatile over the past year, at 62% annualized against 58.6% for AMDY.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
AMDY fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -42% against -73% for CONY.
Compare AMDY and CONY 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.