BTCI vs CONY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
BTCI and CONY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. BTCI is NEOS Bitcoin High Income ETF, while CONY is YieldMax COIN Option Income Strategy ETF. CONY is broader by holdings count, with 18 positions versus 8 for BTCI. BTCI has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has BTCI ahead on AIQ Score, 53 versus 34.
What is the main difference between BTCI and CONY?
BTCI and CONY have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | BTCI | CONY |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.99% | 1.04% |
| Holdings | 8 | 18 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 30.36% | 120.75% |
| Average volume | 580,902 | 507,413 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -41% | -71.1% |
| YTD return | -24.1% | -53.8% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 40.7% | 62% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -53.9% | -73% |
| Beta | 1.55 | 2.53 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.15 | -1.78 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.66 | -2.99 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 53/100 | 34/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 5/10 | 1/10 |
| Momentum | 51/100 | 30/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 61/100 | 15/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
NEOS Bitcoin High Income ETF vs YieldMax COIN Option Income Strategy ETF
BTCI leads
BTCI leads by 19 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 12 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 3 of 3 evidence groups support BTCI, and its lead is widening.
NEOS Bitcoin High Income ETF
YieldMax COIN Option Income Strategy ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BTCI over CONY, 53 versus 34 as of Oct 21, 2026. BTCI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum. BTCI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor BTCI today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. BTCI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 19 points over 30 sessions.
Compare NEOS Bitcoin High Income ETF and YieldMax COIN Option Income Strategy ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
BTCI 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 | BTCI | CONY | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.99% | 1.04% | BTCI |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 8 | 18 | CONY |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 30.36% | 120.75% | CONY |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -53.9% | -73% | BTCI |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 40.7% | 62% | BTCI |
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 BTCI 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.
- Risk Resilience61 vs 15BTCI +46
- Momentum51 vs 30BTCI +21
- Quality50 vs 46BTCI +4
3 of 3 evidence groups favor BTCI. BTCI’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum.
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 +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
New signals
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.7%)
BTCI's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BTCI and CONY 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 | BTCI | CONY | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.99% | 1.04% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 8 | 18 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 580,902 | 507,413 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 40.7% | 62% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -53.9% | -73% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.15 | -1.78 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.55 | 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
BTCI and CONY share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
7 holdings are unique to BTCI, and 5 holdings are unique to CONY. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
What BTCI adds that CONY doesn’t
| Holding | BTCI | CONY |
|---|---|---|
| 912797VP9United States Treasury Bill 11/03/2026 | 59.55% | Not held |
| CBTX 261016C01390000CBTX US 10/16/26 C1390 | 19.46% | Not held |
| IBITiShares Bitcoin Trust ETF | 16.59% | Not held |
| HODLVanEck Bitcoin ETF/US | 1.98% | Not held |
| CBTX 261016C01980000CBTX US 10/16/26 C1980 | 0.39% | Not held |
| CBTX 261016P01390000CBTX US 10/16/26 P1390 | 0.29% | Not held |
What CONY adds that BTCI doesn’t
| Holding | CONY | BTCI |
|---|---|---|
| United States Treasury Note/Bond 2.375% 05/15/2027 | 22.93% | Not held |
| United States Treasury Bill 02/18/2027 | 19.01% | Not held |
| United States Treasury Bill 12/10/2026 | 16.75% | Not held |
| United States Treasury Bill 10/15/2026 | 16.58% | Not held |
| First American Government Obligations Fund 12/01/2031 | 2.47% | Not held |
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.
BTCI vs CONY: five-year payout growth
BTCI began paying distributions in 2024, 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 | BTCI | CONY |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $16.052 | $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
3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor BTCI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BTCI | 53 vs 34 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | BTCI | Price vs 50-day 3.4% vs -5.1%; vs 200-day -1% vs -26.9% |
| Risk Resilience | BTCI | Risk Resilience 61 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 BTCI and CONY and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 19 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 3 of 3 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 BTCI.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20BTCI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 19 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BTCI +19
- 53 vs 34
- 7 sessions ago
- BTCI +18
- 49 vs 31
- 30 sessions ago
- BTCI +12
- 53 vs 41
- 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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
No signal that the other name lacks.
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral
Only CONY
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.38%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.7%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Death Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.12%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1CONY closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 46 points behind, the largest single contributor to BTCI's edge.
- 2CONY's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3BTCI 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
BTCI leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | BTCI | CONY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.6% | -5.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3% | -15.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 15.5% | -10.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -7.1% | -34.9% |
| Year to date | -24.1% | -53.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -41% | -71.1% |
Technicals
BTCI has the stronger structure| Metric | BTCI | CONY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 45.9 | 36.1 |
| ADX (14) | 18.2 | 15.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.4% | -5.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1% | -26.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.5% | 39.7% |
Risk
BTCI is the more resilient| Metric | BTCI | CONY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.55 | 2.53 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.15 | -1.78 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.66 | -2.99 |
| Max drawdown | -53.9% | -73% |
| Current drawdown | -42.8% | -72.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 40.7% | 62% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.3% | -6.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between BTCI and CONY?
BTCI and CONY have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do BTCI and CONY overlap?
BTCI and CONY share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 7 holdings are unique to BTCI, and 5 holdings are unique to CONY. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, BTCI or CONY?
CONY holds more positions: 18 versus 8 for BTCI.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
BTCI has the lower expense ratio, 0.99% 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 30.36% for BTCI.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
CONY has been more volatile over the past year, at 62% annualized against 40.7% for BTCI.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
BTCI fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -53.9% against -73% for CONY.
Compare BTCI 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.