LFGY vs MARO: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
LFGY and MARO are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. LFGY is YieldMax Crypto Industry & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF, while MARO is YieldMax MARA Option Income Strategy ETF. LFGY is broader by holdings count, with 84 positions versus 9 for MARO. MARO has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has LFGY ahead on AIQ Score, 39 versus 27.
What is the main difference between LFGY and MARO?
LFGY holds 84 positions to MARO's 9, and 1% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | LFGY | MARO |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 1.02% | 1% |
| Holdings | 84 | 9 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 81.48% | 249.99% |
| Average volume | 45,114 | 560,563 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -55.4% | -86% |
| YTD return | -34.2% | -63.2% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 43.5% | 67.7% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -56.1% | -86.6% |
| Beta | 2.35 | 2.80 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.71 | -2.59 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.68 | -3.90 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 39/100 | 27/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 1/10 |
| Momentum | 24/100 | 25/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 20/100 | 1/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
YieldMax Crypto Industry & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF vs YieldMax MARA Option Income Strategy ETF
LFGY leads
LFGY leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience.
Stable: 3 of 3 evidence groups support LFGY, and its current signal state is conflicted.
YieldMax Crypto Industry & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF
YieldMax MARA Option Income Strategy ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LFGY over MARO, 39 versus 27 as of Oct 21, 2026. LFGY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience, while MARO holds the stronger quality profile. LFGY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor LFGY today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. LFGY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare YieldMax Crypto Industry & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF and YieldMax MARA Option Income Strategy ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
LFGY vs MARO: 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 | LFGY | MARO | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 1.02% | 1% | MARO |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 84 | 9 | LFGY |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 81.48% | 249.99% | MARO |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -56.1% | -86.6% | LFGY |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 43.5% | 67.7% | LFGY |
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 LFGY and MARO 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 Resilience20 vs 1LFGY +19
- Quality33 vs 42MARO +9
- Momentum24 vs 25Even
3 of 3 evidence groups favor LFGY. LFGY’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience; MARO 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.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 8 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 8 active signals are unchanged.
LFGY's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LFGY and MARO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LFGY (YieldMax Crypto Industry & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience.
MARO (YieldMax MARA Option Income Strategy ETF): the counter-case, on quality — but at materially higher volatility, 47.8% against 37.8%.
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 | LFGY | MARO | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 1.02% | 1% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 84 | 9 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 45,114 | 560,563 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 43.5% | 67.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -56.1% | -86.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.71 | -2.59 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 2.35 | 2.80 | 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
LFGY and MARO share 1.46% of their weighted exposure across 1 common holdings.
22 holdings are unique to LFGY, and 3 holdings are unique to MARO. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | LFGY | MARO | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States Treasury Bill 12/10/2026 | 1.46% | 28.74% | 1.46% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What LFGY adds that MARO doesn’t
| Holding | LFGY | MARO |
|---|---|---|
| First American Government Obligations Fund 12/01/2031 | 10.9% | Not held |
| GLXYGalaxy Digital Inc | 5.64% | Not held |
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 5.2% | Not held |
| XYZBlock Inc | 5.2% | Not held |
| OPRAOpera Ltd | 4.73% | Not held |
| RIOTRiot Platforms Inc | 4.49% | Not held |
What MARO adds that LFGY doesn’t
| Holding | MARO | LFGY |
|---|---|---|
| United States Treasury Bill 02/18/2027 | 33.4% | Not held |
| United States Treasury Bill 12/10/2026 | 28.74% | 1.46% |
| United States Treasury Bill 10/15/2026 | 14.05% | Not held |
| United States Treasury Bill 07/08/2027 | 0.6% | 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.
LFGY vs MARO: five-year payout growth
LFGY began paying distributions in 2025, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. MARO began paying distributions in 2025, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | LFGY | MARO |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $23.677 | $21.132 |
| 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 3 covered evidence groups favor LFGY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | LFGY | 39 vs 27 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | LFGY | Price vs 50-day -12.6% vs -33%; vs 200-day -24.1% vs -54.7% |
| Risk Resilience | LFGY | Risk Resilience 20 vs 1 |
| 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 LFGY and MARO 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 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 3 of 3 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 LFGY.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20LFGY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LFGY +12
- 39 vs 27
- 7 sessions ago
- LFGY +12
- 39 vs 27
- 30 sessions ago
- LFGY +11
- 41 vs 30
- 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.
LFGY and MARO carry the same 8 signals, so the signals do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Death Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Keltner Channel Breakdown, RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce, 52-Week Low Proximity, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
LFGY 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 +2.93%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +3.15%, 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.
- 1MARO closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to LFGY's edge.
- 2MARO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3LFGY'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
LFGY leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | LFGY | MARO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -9% | -18.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -22.6% | -44.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -21% | -51.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -29.5% | -59.7% |
| Year to date | -34.2% | -63.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -55.4% | -86% |
Technicals
LFGY has the stronger structure| Metric | LFGY | MARO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 22.9 | 5.8 |
| ADX (14) | 29 | 30.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.6% | -33% |
| Price vs 200-day | -24.1% | -54.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 37.8% | 47.8% |
Risk
LFGY is the more resilient| Metric | LFGY | MARO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.35 | 2.8 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.71 | -2.59 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.68 | -3.9 |
| Max drawdown | -56.1% | -86.6% |
| Current drawdown | -56.1% | -86.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 43.5% | 67.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.5% | -7.7% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between LFGY and MARO?
LFGY holds 84 positions to MARO's 9, and 1% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do LFGY and MARO overlap?
LFGY and MARO share 1.46% of their weighted exposure across 1 common holdings. 22 holdings are unique to LFGY, and 3 holdings are unique to MARO. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, LFGY or MARO?
LFGY holds more positions: 84 versus 9 for MARO.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
MARO has the lower expense ratio, 1% a year against 1.02% for LFGY.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
MARO, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 249.99% against 81.48% for LFGY.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
MARO has been more volatile over the past year, at 67.7% annualized against 43.5% for LFGY.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
LFGY fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -56.1% against -86.6% for MARO.
Compare LFGY and MARO 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.