JEPQ vs VYM ETF Comparison
Compare JEPQ and VYM across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between JEPQ and VYM?
JEPQ is JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF, while VYM is Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF. JEPQ is tied to US Equity; VYM is tied to Large Cap Equity. VYM is broader by holdings count, with 604 positions versus 94 for JEPQ. JEPQ is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
| Metric | JEPQ | VYM | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.04% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $42.4B | $99.2B | Fund |
| Holdings | 94 | 604 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | 69.1% | 36.3% | Fund |
| Average volume | 7,044,790 | 1,523,045 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | US Equity | Large Cap Equity | Fund |
| 1Y return | +8.7% | +18.9% | Performance |
| YTD return | +2.7% | +14.9% | Performance |
| Annualized volatility | 15% | 10.3% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -10.3% | -7.2% | Risk |
| Beta | 1.04 | 0.58 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.33 | 1.39 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | 0.45 | 2.12 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 56/100 | 59/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 8/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 54/100 | 51/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 80/100 | 83/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF vs Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF
VYM leads
VYM leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value, but the lead has narrowed from 6 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support VYM, its lead is narrowing, 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, 59 versus 56 as of Sep 5, 2026. VYM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value. VYM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VYM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. VYM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
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.
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.
- Value30%31 vs 47VYM +16
- Quality30%69 vs 66Even
- Momentum25%54 vs 51Even
- Risk Resilience15%80 vs 83Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor VYM. VYM’s edge is concentrated in value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
VYM's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — JEPQ and VYM both carry a full feed there.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
VYMVYM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
VYMVYM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
VYMVYM carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
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. |
| Assets under management | $42.4B | $99.2B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 110 | 589 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 7,044,790 | 1,523,045 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 15% | 10.3% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -10.3% | -7.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.33 | 1.39 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.04 | 0.58 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
JEPQ and VYM share 16.62% of their weighted exposure across 27 common holdings.
JEPQ is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 69.11% of the fund, against 36.33% for VYM (94 holdings vs 604). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
67 holdings are unique to JEPQ and 577 to VYM. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | JEPQ | VYM | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| AVGOBROADCOM INC COMMON | 2.02% | 7.36% | 2.02% |
| ADIANALOG DEVICES INC | 2% | 1.46% | 1.46% |
| TXNTEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC | 1.45% | 2.04% | 1.45% |
| PEPPEPSICO INC COMMON STOCK | 1.37% | 1.55% | 1.37% |
| CSCOCISCO SYSTEMS INC COMMON | 1.22% | 1.86% | 1.22% |
| QCOMQUALCOMM INC COMMON | 1.08% | 1.27% | 1.08% |
| AMGNAMGEN INC COMMON STOCK | 0.86% | 1.56% | 0.86% |
| TMUST-MOBILE US INC COMMON | 1.19% | 0.68% | 0.68% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, JEPQ or VYM?
VYM currently has more reported holdings, with 604 positions versus 94.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VYM has the lower reported expense ratio in the current fund profile.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
The current dataset does not show a higher-yield winner.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
JEPQ has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
VYM has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
VYM currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 59 to 56.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 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 | Even | 56 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | VYM | Value 31 vs 47 |
| Technicals | VYM | Price vs 50-day 0.7% vs 0.9%; vs 200-day 1.6% vs 7% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 80 vs 83 |
| 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 narrow at 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 · Apr 23 – Sep 4VYM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VYM +3
- 56 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- JEPQ +1
- 59 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- VYM +6
- 60 vs 66
- 90 sessions ago
- VYM +5
- 57 vs 62
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 1 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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.29%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.57%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.3%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.4%, 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.
- 1JEPQ closes the Value gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to VYM's edge.
- 2JEPQ's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3VYM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate VYM'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
VYM leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | JEPQ | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1% | 0.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.6% | 0.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.7% | 2.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.6% | 8.4% |
| Year to date | 2.7% | 14.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 8.7% | 18.9% |
Technicals
VYM has the stronger structure| Metric | JEPQ | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.8 | 38.8 |
| ADX (14) | 13.1 | 14.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.7% | 0.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.6% | 7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 11.1% | 6% |
Risk
Split| Metric | JEPQ | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.04 | 0.58 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.33 | 1.39 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.45 | 2.12 |
| Max drawdown | -10.3% | -7.2% |
| Current drawdown | -2.9% | -1.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 15% | 10.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.7% | -1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, JEPQ or VYM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, VYM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 59 against JEPQ's 56. The edge comes from value. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is JEPQ or VYM the better buy right now?
VYM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor VYM over JEPQ?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. VYM leads Value by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, JEPQ or VYM?
VYM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. VYM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, JEPQ or VYM?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, JEPQ or VYM?
The two are level on Momentum. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, JEPQ or VYM?
VYM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. VYM carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is JEPQ more profitable than VYM?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is VYM's lead over JEPQ getting stronger or weaker?
VYM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-01, when VYM moved ahead of JEPQ.
What would change the JEPQ vs VYM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JEPQ closes the Value gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to VYM's edge; JEPQ's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; VYM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate VYM's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about JEPQ and VYM?
JEPQ: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. VYM: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on JEPQ is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On VYM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare JEPQ and VYM with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.