MARO vs NFLY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
MARO and NFLY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. MARO is YieldMax MARA Option Income Strategy ETF, while NFLY is YieldMax NFLX Option Income Strategy ETF. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has NFLY ahead on AIQ Score, 38 versus 27.
What is the main difference between MARO and NFLY?
MARO and NFLY have little in common: 25% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | MARO | NFLY |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 1% | 1.01% |
| Holdings | 9 | 11 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 249.99% | 61.79% |
| Average volume | 560,563 | 65,978 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -86% | -58.4% |
| YTD return | -63.2% | -44.8% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 67.7% | 29.9% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -86.6% | -60.1% |
| Beta | 2.80 | 0.31 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.59 | -2.96 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.90 | -3.99 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 27/100 | 38/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 1/10 | 2/10 |
| Momentum | 25/100 | 32/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 1/100 | 57/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
YieldMax MARA Option Income Strategy ETF vs YieldMax NFLX Option Income Strategy ETF
NFLY leads
NFLY leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 6 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 3 evidence groups support NFLY, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
YieldMax MARA Option Income Strategy ETF
YieldMax NFLX Option Income Strategy ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NFLY over MARO, 38 versus 27 as of Oct 21, 2026. NFLY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum, while MARO holds the stronger quality profile. NFLY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor NFLY today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. NFLY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare YieldMax MARA Option Income Strategy ETF and YieldMax NFLX Option Income Strategy ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
MARO vs NFLY: 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 | MARO | NFLY | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 1% | 1.01% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 9 | 11 | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 249.99% | 61.79% | MARO |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -86.6% | -60.1% | NFLY |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 67.7% | 29.9% | NFLY |
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 MARO and NFLY 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 Resilience1 vs 57NFLY +56
- Quality42 vs 34MARO +8
- Momentum25 vs 32NFLY +7
3 of 3 evidence groups favor NFLY. NFLY’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum; 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.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
NFLY's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MARO and NFLY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
NFLY (YieldMax NFLX Option Income Strategy ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
MARO (YieldMax MARA Option Income Strategy ETF): the counter-case, on quality — but at materially higher volatility, 47.8% against 21.8%.
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 | MARO | NFLY | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 1% | 1.01% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 9 | 11 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 560,563 | 65,978 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 67.7% | 29.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -86.6% | -60.1% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.59 | -2.96 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 2.80 | 0.31 | 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
MARO and NFLY share 24.61% of their weighted exposure across 2 common holdings.
2 holdings are unique to MARO, and 2 holdings are unique to NFLY. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | MARO | NFLY | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States Treasury Bill 02/18/2027 | 33.4% | 24.01% | 24.01% |
| United States Treasury Bill 07/08/2027 | 0.6% | 37.77% | 0.6% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What MARO adds that NFLY doesn’t
| Holding | MARO | NFLY |
|---|---|---|
| United States Treasury Bill 12/10/2026 | 28.74% | Not held |
| United States Treasury Bill 10/15/2026 | 14.05% | Not held |
What NFLY adds that MARO doesn’t
| Holding | NFLY | MARO |
|---|---|---|
| United States Treasury Bill 07/08/2027 | 37.77% | 0.6% |
| United States Treasury Note/Bond 2.375% 05/15/2027 | 20.04% | Not held |
| First American Government Obligations Fund 12/01/2031 | 2.45% | 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.
MARO vs NFLY: five-year payout growth
MARO began paying distributions in 2025, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. NFLY began paying distributions in 2023, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | MARO | NFLY |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $21.132 | $7.390 |
| 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 NFLY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | NFLY | 27 vs 38 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | NFLY | Price vs 50-day -33% vs -13%; vs 200-day -54.7% vs -29% |
| Risk Resilience | NFLY | Risk Resilience 1 vs 57 |
| 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 MARO and NFLY and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 11 points.
- 3 of 3 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 NFLY.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20NFLY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- NFLY +11
- 27 vs 38
- 7 sessions ago
- NFLY +13
- 27 vs 40
- 30 sessions ago
- NFLY +6
- 30 vs 36
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 24 when NFLY moved ahead of MARO.
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.
1 bullish / 5 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only MARO
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (8.92%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted
Only NFLY
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, 52-Week Low Proximity, Downtrend Structure Active.
NFLY 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 +3.15%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -2.61%, 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 56 points behind, the largest single contributor to NFLY's edge.
- 2MARO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3NFLY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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
NFLY leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | MARO | NFLY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -18.1% | -3.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -44.9% | -7.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -51.8% | -10.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -59.7% | -36.8% |
| Year to date | -63.2% | -44.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -86% | -58.4% |
Technicals
NFLY has the stronger structure| Metric | MARO | NFLY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 5.8 | 38.2 |
| ADX (14) | 30.7 | 31.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -33% | -13% |
| Price vs 200-day | -54.7% | -29% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 47.8% | 21.8% |
Risk
NFLY is the more resilient| Metric | MARO | NFLY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.8 | 0.31 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.59 | -2.96 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.9 | -3.99 |
| Max drawdown | -86.6% | -60.1% |
| Current drawdown | -86.3% | -60.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 67.7% | 29.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.7% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between MARO and NFLY?
MARO and NFLY have little in common: 25% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do MARO and NFLY overlap?
MARO and NFLY share 24.61% of their weighted exposure across 2 common holdings. 2 holdings are unique to MARO, and 2 holdings are unique to NFLY. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, MARO or NFLY?
They hold a similar number of positions: 9 for MARO and 11 for NFLY.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
The two are within a basis point: 1% for MARO and 1.01% for NFLY.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
MARO, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 249.99% against 61.79% for NFLY.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
MARO has been more volatile over the past year, at 67.7% annualized against 29.9% for NFLY.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
NFLY fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -60.1% against -86.6% for MARO.
Compare MARO and NFLY 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.