GPTY vs IWMI: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
GPTY and IWMI are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. GPTY is YieldMax AI & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF, while IWMI is NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF. GPTY is broader by holdings count, with 96 positions versus 4 for IWMI. IWMI has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has IWMI ahead on AIQ Score, 52 versus 32.
What is the main difference between GPTY and IWMI?
GPTY puts 78% of its assets in Technology, while IWMI spreads across 11 sectors with none above 21%.
| Metric | GPTY | IWMI |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 1.06% | 0.76% |
| Holdings | 96 | 4 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 39.32% | 14.86% |
| Average volume | 58,392 | 423,424 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -15.9% | -0.4% |
| YTD return | -6.2% | +0.3% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 28.2% | 15.4% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -29.8% | -10.6% |
| Beta | 1.80 | 0.97 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.61 | -0.18 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.93 | -0.28 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 32/100 | 52/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 1/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 24/100 | 41/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 34/100 | 81/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
YieldMax AI & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF vs NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF
IWMI leads
IWMI leads by 20 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value, and the lead has widened from 6 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 4 evidence groups support IWMI, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
YieldMax AI & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF
NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IWMI over GPTY, 52 versus 32 as of Oct 21, 2026. IWMI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value. IWMI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IWMI today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. IWMI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 20 points over 30 sessions. IWMI leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare YieldMax AI & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF and NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
GPTY vs IWMI: 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 | GPTY | IWMI | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 1.06% | 0.76% | IWMI |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 96 | 4 | GPTY |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 39.32% | 14.86% | GPTY |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -29.8% | -10.6% | IWMI |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 28.2% | 15.4% | IWMI |
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 GPTY and IWMI 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 Resilience34 vs 81IWMI +47
- Value36 vs 56IWMI +20
- Momentum24 vs 41IWMI +17
- Quality34 vs 44IWMI +10
4 of 4 evidence groups favor IWMI. IWMI’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.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +9
New signals
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.16%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
IWMI's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GPTY and IWMI 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 | GPTY | IWMI | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 1.06% | 0.76% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 96 | 4 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 58,392 | 423,424 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 28.2% | 15.4% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -29.8% | -10.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.61 | -0.18 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.80 | 0.97 | 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.
How much of the same holdings they own
GPTY and IWMI share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
27 holdings are unique to GPTY, and 3 holdings are unique to IWMI. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
What GPTY adds that IWMI doesn’t
| Holding | GPTY | IWMI |
|---|---|---|
| SNOWSnowflake Inc | 6.4% | Not held |
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 6.31% | Not held |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 5.13% | Not held |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 4.53% | Not held |
| AAPLApple Inc | 4.5% | Not held |
| PLTRPalantir Technologies Inc | 4.5% | Not held |
What IWMI adds that GPTY doesn’t
| Holding | IWMI | GPTY |
|---|---|---|
| VTWOVanguard Russell 2000 ETF | 98.67% | Not held |
| RUT 261016C03005000RUT US 10/16/26 C3005 | 0.23% | Not held |
| RUT 261016C03050000RUT US 10/16/26 C3050 | 0.12% | 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.
GPTY vs IWMI: five-year payout growth
GPTY began paying distributions in 2025, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. IWMI began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | GPTY | IWMI |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $14.514 | $6.842 |
| 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
4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IWMI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | IWMI | 32 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | IWMI | Value 36 vs 56 |
| Technicals | IWMI | Price vs 50-day -5.5% vs -4.7%; vs 200-day -5.3% vs -4% |
| Risk Resilience | IWMI | Risk Resilience 34 vs 81 |
| 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 GPTY and IWMI 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 20 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 IWMI.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20IWMI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 20 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IWMI +20
- 32 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- IWMI +18
- 32 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- IWMI +6
- 42 vs 48
- 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.
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only GPTY
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.89%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only IWMI
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.16%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.19%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze.
IWMI 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 +0.65%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.89%, 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.
- 1GPTY closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 47 points behind, the largest single contributor to IWMI's edge.
- 2GPTY's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3IWMI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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
IWMI leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | GPTY | IWMI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.3% | -0.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -10.1% | -3.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -5.2% | -6.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -4% | -4.5% |
| Year to date | -6.2% | 0.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -15.9% | -0.4% |
Technicals
IWMI has the stronger structure| Metric | GPTY | IWMI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 29.9 | 48.6 |
| ADX (14) | 19.9 | 41 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.5% | -4.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -5.3% | -4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 24.2% | 13.3% |
Risk
IWMI is the more resilient| Metric | GPTY | IWMI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.8 | 0.97 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.61 | -0.18 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.93 | -0.28 |
| Max drawdown | -29.8% | -10.6% |
| Current drawdown | -21.4% | -9% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.2% | 15.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.9% | -1.7% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between GPTY and IWMI?
GPTY puts 78% of its assets in Technology, while IWMI spreads across 11 sectors with none above 21%.
How much do GPTY and IWMI overlap?
GPTY and IWMI share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 27 holdings are unique to GPTY, and 3 holdings are unique to IWMI. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, GPTY or IWMI?
GPTY holds more positions: 96 versus 4 for IWMI.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
IWMI has the lower expense ratio, 0.76% a year against 1.06% for GPTY.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
GPTY, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 39.32% against 14.86% for IWMI.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
GPTY has been more volatile over the past year, at 28.2% annualized against 15.4% for IWMI.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
IWMI fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -10.6% against -29.8% for GPTY.
Compare GPTY and IWMI 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.