CHPY vs ULTY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
CHPY and ULTY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. CHPY is YieldMax Semiconductor Portfolio Option Income ETF, while ULTY is YieldMax Ultra Option Income Strategy ETF. CHPY is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has ULTY ahead on AIQ Score, 40 versus 33.
What is the main difference between CHPY and ULTY?
CHPY and ULTY have little in common: 18% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | CHPY | ULTY |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 1.03% | 1.4% |
| Holdings | 94 | 101 |
| Top-10 concentration | 48.1% | 41.8% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 45.74% | 98.01% |
| Average volume | 700,213 | 476,225 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +5.8% | -54.8% |
| YTD return | +9.2% | -36.5% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 40.3% | 24.1% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -32.9% | -54.5% |
| Beta | 2.30 | 1.41 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.24 | -3.26 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.34 | -4.82 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 33/100 | 40/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 1/10 | 2/10 |
| Momentum | 21/100 | 24/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 28/100 | 58/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
YieldMax Semiconductor Portfolio Option Income ETF vs YieldMax Ultra Option Income Strategy ETF
ULTY leads
ULTY leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from CHPY.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support ULTY, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
YieldMax Semiconductor Portfolio Option Income ETF
YieldMax Ultra Option Income Strategy ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ULTY over CHPY, 40 versus 33 as of Oct 21, 2026. ULTY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value. ULTY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor ULTY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. ULTY lead: Reversed — CHPY led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ULTY now leads by 7.
Compare YieldMax Semiconductor Portfolio Option Income ETF and YieldMax Ultra Option Income Strategy ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
CHPY vs ULTY: 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 | CHPY | ULTY | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 1.03% | 1.4% | CHPY |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 94 | 101 | Similar |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 48.1% | 41.8% | ULTY |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 45.74% | 98.01% | ULTY |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -32.9% | -54.5% | CHPY |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 40.3% | 24.1% | ULTY |
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 CHPY and ULTY 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 Resilience28 vs 58ULTY +30
- Value27 vs 33ULTY +6
- Momentum21 vs 24Even
- Quality50 vs 50Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor ULTY. ULTY’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
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
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
ULTY's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CHPY and ULTY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ULTY (YieldMax Ultra Option Income Strategy ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
CHPY (YieldMax Semiconductor Portfolio Option Income ETF): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 27.8% against 21.7%.
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 | CHPY | ULTY | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 1.03% | 1.4% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 94 | 101 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 700,213 | 476,225 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 40.3% | 24.1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -32.9% | -54.5% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.24 | -3.26 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 2.30 | 1.41 | 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
CHPY and ULTY share 18.05% of their weighted exposure across 6 common holdings.
23 holdings are unique to CHPY, and 22 holdings are unique to ULTY. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
CHPY is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 48.1% of the fund, against 41.77% for ULTY (94 holdings vs 101). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | CHPY | ULTY | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 5.3% | 4.49% | 4.49% |
| LRCXLam Research Corp | 4.85% | 4.19% | 4.19% |
| ALABAstera Labs Inc | 3.72% | 3.64% | 3.64% |
| ADIAnalog Devices Inc | 2.74% | 3.86% | 2.74% |
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 6.1% | 2.17% | 2.17% |
| First American Government Obligations Fund 12/01/2031 | 0.82% | 2.76% | 0.82% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What CHPY adds that ULTY doesn’t
| Holding | CHPY | ULTY |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 6.1% | 2.17% |
| MRVLMARVELL TECHNOLOGY INC | 5.27% | Not held |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 5% | Not held |
| INTCIntel Corp | 4.72% | Not held |
| MUMicron Technology Inc | 4.68% | Not held |
| UMCUnited Microelectronics Corp | 4.39% | Not held |
What ULTY adds that CHPY doesn’t
| Holding | ULTY | CHPY |
|---|---|---|
| MELIMercadoLibre Inc | 4.94% | Not held |
| LITELumentum Holdings Inc | 4.42% | Not held |
| FIXComfort Systems USA Inc | 4.4% | Not held |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 3.96% | Not held |
| GDXVanEck Gold Miners ETF/USA | 3.86% | Not held |
| COHRCoherent Corp | 3.85% | 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.
CHPY vs ULTY: five-year payout growth
CHPY began paying distributions in 2025, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. ULTY began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | CHPY | ULTY |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $15.679 | $53.014 |
| 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 4 covered evidence groups favor ULTY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ULTY | 33 vs 40 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | ULTY | Value 27 vs 33 |
| Technicals | CHPY | Price vs 50-day -9.3% vs -8.6%; vs 200-day -10.2% vs -21.8% |
| Risk Resilience | ULTY | Risk Resilience 28 vs 58 |
| 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 CHPY and ULTY 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 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 ULTY.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20ULTY lead: Reversed — CHPY led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ULTY now leads by 7.
- Today
- ULTY +7
- 33 vs 40
- 7 sessions ago
- ULTY +8
- 32 vs 40
- 30 sessions ago
- CHPY +1
- 44 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Oct 8 when ULTY moved ahead of CHPY.
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.
1 bullish / 4 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
1 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ULTY
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
Both carry 5 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, Keltner Channel Breakdown, RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
ULTY 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.
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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.51%, 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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to ULTY's edge.
- 2CHPY's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3ULTY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 5 bearish rules at once.
- 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 | CHPY | ULTY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -8.4% | -5.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -14.7% | -9.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -18.2% | -13% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -6% | -25.7% |
| Year to date | 9.2% | -36.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 5.8% | -54.8% |
Technicals
CHPY has the stronger structure| Metric | CHPY | ULTY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 20.6 | 29.5 |
| ADX (14) | 23.6 | 33.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.3% | -8.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -10.2% | -21.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.8% | 21.7% |
Risk
ULTY is the more resilient| Metric | CHPY | ULTY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.3 | 1.41 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.24 | -3.26 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.34 | -4.82 |
| Max drawdown | -32.9% | -54.5% |
| Current drawdown | -32.1% | -54.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 40.3% | 24.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.3% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between CHPY and ULTY?
CHPY and ULTY have little in common: 18% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do CHPY and ULTY overlap?
CHPY and ULTY share 18.05% of their weighted exposure across 6 common holdings. 23 holdings are unique to CHPY, and 22 holdings are unique to ULTY. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, CHPY or ULTY?
They hold a similar number of positions: 94 for CHPY and 101 for ULTY.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
CHPY has the lower expense ratio, 1.03% a year against 1.4% for ULTY.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
ULTY, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 98.01% against 45.74% for CHPY.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
CHPY has been more volatile over the past year, at 40.3% annualized against 24.1% for ULTY.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
CHPY fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -32.9% against -54.5% for ULTY.
Compare CHPY and ULTY 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.