CONY vs MSTY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
CONY and MSTY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. CONY is YieldMax COIN Option Income Strategy ETF, while MSTY is YieldMax MSTR Option Income Strategy ETF. MSTY is broader by holdings count, with 24 positions versus 18 for CONY. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has MSTY ahead on AIQ Score, 33 versus 31.
| Metric | CONY | MSTY |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 1.04% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 18 | 24 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 122.13% | 134.06% |
| Average volume | 505,804 | 1,984,866 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -73% | -76.5% |
| YTD return | -54.8% | -51% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 62.2% | 71.3% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -73.6% | -80.3% |
| Beta | 2.55 | 2.82 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.79 | -1.65 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.01 | -2.91 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 31/100 | 33/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 1/10 | 1/10 |
| Momentum | 27/100 | 28/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 7/100 | 0/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
YieldMax COIN Option Income Strategy ETF vs YieldMax MSTR Option Income Strategy ETF
MSTY leads
MSTY leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 13 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 1 of 3 evidence groups support MSTY, and its lead is narrowing.
YieldMax COIN Option Income Strategy ETF
YieldMax MSTR Option Income Strategy ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MSTY over CONY, 33 versus 31 as of Oct 24, 2026. MSTY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while CONY holds the stronger risk resilience profile. MSTY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor MSTY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. MSTY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare YieldMax COIN Option Income Strategy ETF and YieldMax MSTR Option Income Strategy ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
CONY vs MSTY: 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 | CONY | MSTY | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 1.04% | 1.03% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 18 | 24 | MSTY |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 122.13% | 134.06% | MSTY |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -73.6% | -80.3% | CONY |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 62.2% | 71.3% | CONY |
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 CONY and MSTY 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.
- Quality46 vs 54MSTY +8
- Risk Resilience7 vs 0CONY +7
- Momentum27 vs 28Even
1 of 3 evidence groups favor MSTY. MSTY’s edge is concentrated in quality; CONY keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-23, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-22.
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
MSTY's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CONY and MSTY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MSTY (YieldMax MSTR Option Income Strategy ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
CONY (YieldMax COIN Option Income Strategy ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
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 | CONY | MSTY | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 1.04% | 1.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 18 | 24 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 505,804 | 1,984,866 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 62.2% | 71.3% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -73.6% | -80.3% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.79 | -1.65 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 2.55 | 2.82 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
CONY vs MSTY: five-year payout growth
CONY began paying distributions in 2023, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. MSTY began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | CONY | MSTY |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $75.578 | $87.205 |
| 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 MSTY. 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 | 31 vs 33 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | MSTY | Price vs 50-day -12.1% vs -4.6%; vs 200-day -29.1% vs -26.3% |
| Risk Resilience | CONY | Risk Resilience 7 vs 0 |
| 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 CONY and MSTY 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 MSTY.
How the comparison changed
100 daily snapshots · Jun 24 – Oct 23MSTY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MSTY +2
- 31 vs 33
- 7 sessions ago
- MSTY +7
- 31 vs 38
- 30 sessions ago
- MSTY +13
- 32 vs 45
- 90 sessions ago
- MSTY +4
- 29 vs 33
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 21 when MSTY 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.
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral
Only CONY
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.3%)
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 5 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Death Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Downtrend Structure 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 down over the latest session (price -2.58%, AIQ -3 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.07%, AIQ -1 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 Quality gap — currently 8 points behind, the largest single contributor to MSTY's edge.
- 2CONY's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3MSTY starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 11 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate MSTY'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
MSTY leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CONY | MSTY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.2% | 4.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -16.5% | -12.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -14.7% | 11.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -38.4% | -44.2% |
| Year to date | -54.8% | -51% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -73% | -76.5% |
Technicals
MSTY has the stronger structure| Metric | CONY | MSTY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 32.6 | 33.8 |
| ADX (14) | 17.2 | 17.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.1% | -4.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -29.1% | -26.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 45.3% | 58.8% |
Risk
CONY is the more resilient| Metric | CONY | MSTY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.55 | 2.82 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.79 | -1.65 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.01 | -2.91 |
| Max drawdown | -73.6% | -80.3% |
| Current drawdown | -73.6% | -75.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 62.2% | 71.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.4% | -6.6% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF is more diversified, CONY or MSTY?
MSTY holds more positions: 24 versus 18 for CONY.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
The two are within a basis point: 1.04% for CONY and 1.03% for MSTY.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
MSTY, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 134.06% against 122.13% for CONY.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
MSTY has been more volatile over the past year, at 71.3% annualized against 62.2% for CONY.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
CONY fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -73.6% against -80.3% for MSTY.
Compare CONY and MSTY 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.