JEPQ vs VYM: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
JEPQ and VYM are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. JEPQ is JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF, while VYM is Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF. VYM is broader by holdings count, with 613 positions versus 110 for JEPQ. JEPQ is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VYM ahead on AIQ Score, 64 versus 54.
What is the main difference between JEPQ and VYM?
JEPQ puts 61% of its assets in Technology, while VYM spreads across 11 sectors with none above 21%.
| Metric | JEPQ | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.04% |
| Holdings | 110 | 613 |
| Top-10 concentration | 42.6% | 26.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 11.58% | 2.28% |
| Average volume | 6,194,078 | 1,227,061 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +4.1% | +15.5% |
| YTD return | +2.3% | +12.3% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 15.1% | 10.1% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -10.3% | -7.2% |
| Beta | 1.04 | 0.56 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.04 | 1.05 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.05 | 1.71 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 54/100 | 64/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 5/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 31/100 | 67/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 80/100 | 80/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF vs Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF
VYM leads
VYM leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from JEPQ.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support VYM, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF
Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VYM over JEPQ, 64 versus 54 as of Oct 21, 2026. VYM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while JEPQ holds the stronger quality profile. VYM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VYM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. VYM lead: Reversed — JEPQ led by 11 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; VYM now leads by 10.
Compare JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF and Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
JEPQ vs VYM: 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 | JEPQ | VYM | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.35% | 0.04% | VYM |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 110 | 613 | VYM |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 42.6% | 26.2% | VYM |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 11.58% | 2.28% | JEPQ |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -10.3% | -7.2% | VYM |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 15.1% | 10.1% | VYM |
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 JEPQ and VYM 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.
- Momentum31 vs 67VYM +36
- Value45 vs 52VYM +7
- Quality69 vs 65JEPQ +4
- Risk Resilience80 vs 80Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor VYM. VYM’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; JEPQ keeps a meaningful quality edge.
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
New signals
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
VYM's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — JEPQ and VYM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VYM (Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
JEPQ (JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF): the counter-case, on quality.
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 | JEPQ | VYM | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.04% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 110 | 613 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 6,194,078 | 1,227,061 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 15.1% | 10.1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -10.3% | -7.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.04 | 1.05 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.04 | 0.56 | 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
JEPQ and VYM share 11.85% of their weighted exposure across 28 common holdings.
78 holdings are unique to JEPQ, and 576 holdings are unique to VYM. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
JEPQ is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 42.65% of the fund, against 26.16% for VYM (110 holdings vs 613). 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 | JEPQ | VYM | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.05% | 7.36% | 2.05% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc | 1.26% | 1.86% | 1.26% |
| TXNTexas Instruments Inc | 0.77% | 1.02% | 0.77% |
| ADIANALOG DEVICES INC | 1.06% | 0.73% | 0.73% |
| PEPPepsiCo Inc | 0.67% | 0.77% | 0.67% |
| LINLinde PLC | 0.66% | 0.9% | 0.66% |
| QCOMQUALCOMM Inc | 0.58% | 0.63% | 0.58% |
| ABBVAbbVie Inc | 0.42% | 1.8% | 0.42% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What JEPQ adds that VYM doesn’t
| Holding | JEPQ | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA CORP COMMON STOCK | 7.22% | Not held |
| AAPLAPPLE INC COMMON STOCK | 6.63% | Not held |
| MSFTMICROSOFT CORP COMMON | 5.16% | Not held |
| GOOGALPHABET INC-CL C - | 4.77% | Not held |
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY INC | 4.67% | Not held |
| AMZNAMAZON.COM INC COMMON | 3.94% | Not held |
What VYM adds that JEPQ doesn’t
| Holding | VYM | JEPQ |
|---|---|---|
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 7.36% | 2.05% |
| JPMJPMorgan Chase & Co | 3.82% | Not held |
| XOMExxonMobil Holdings Corp | 2.63% | Not held |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson | 2.51% | Not held |
| ABBVAbbVie Inc | 1.8% | 0.42% |
| BACBank of America Corp | 1.67% | 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.
JEPQ vs VYM: five-year payout growth
VYM grew its split-adjusted payout at 3.79% a year over 2020-2025. JEPQ began paying distributions in 2022, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | JEPQ | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $6.123 | $3.501 |
| Peer rank | not ranked | #21 of 33 |
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 VYM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VYM | 54 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | VYM | Value 45 vs 52 |
| Technicals | VYM | Price vs 50-day -0.4% vs 0%; vs 200-day 0.6% vs 2.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 80 vs 80 |
| 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 JEPQ and VYM 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 10 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)
- 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 VYM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20VYM lead: Reversed — JEPQ led by 11 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; VYM now leads by 10.
- Today
- VYM +10
- 54 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- VYM +6
- 55 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- JEPQ +11
- 65 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- VYM +2
- 61 vs 63
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Oct 14 when VYM moved ahead of JEPQ.
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 / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only JEPQ
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only VYM
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling.
VYM 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.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.86%, AIQ -1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.19%, 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.
- 1JEPQ closes the Momentum gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to VYM's edge.
- 2JEPQ's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3VYM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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
VYM leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | JEPQ | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.4% | 1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.8% | 1.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0% | -0.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.4% | 4.4% |
| Year to date | 2.3% | 12.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 4.1% | 15.5% |
Technicals
VYM has the stronger structure| Metric | JEPQ | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 29.6 | 80.5 |
| ADX (14) | 21.8 | 24.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.4% | 0% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.6% | 2.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 10.8% | 8.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | JEPQ | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.04 | 0.56 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.04 | 1.05 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.05 | 1.71 |
| Max drawdown | -10.3% | -7.2% |
| Current drawdown | -3.3% | -3.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 15.1% | 10.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.7% | -1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between JEPQ and VYM?
JEPQ puts 61% of its assets in Technology, while VYM spreads across 11 sectors with none above 21%.
How much do JEPQ and VYM overlap?
JEPQ and VYM share 11.85% of their weighted exposure across 28 common holdings. 78 holdings are unique to JEPQ, and 576 holdings are unique to VYM. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, JEPQ or VYM?
VYM holds more positions: 613 versus 110 for JEPQ.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VYM has the lower expense ratio, 0.04% a year against 0.35% for JEPQ.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
JEPQ, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 11.58% against 2.28% for VYM.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
JEPQ has been more volatile over the past year, at 15.1% annualized against 10.1% for VYM.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
VYM fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -7.2% against -10.3% for JEPQ.
Compare JEPQ and VYM 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.