MRNY vs TSLY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
MRNY and TSLY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. MRNY is YieldMax MRNA Option Income Strategy ETF, while TSLY is YieldMax TSLA Option Income Strategy ETF. MRNY has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has TSLY ahead on AIQ Score, 46 versus 45.
| Metric | MRNY | TSLY |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 1% | 1.07% |
| Holdings | 15 | 15 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 38.96% | 81.23% |
| Average volume | 300,891 | 480,979 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +166.5% | -47% |
| YTD return | +196.7% | -42.1% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 181.1% | 38.5% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -35.8% | -52.7% |
| Beta | 1.64 | 1.87 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.05 | -1.62 |
| Sortino ratio | 4.37 | -2.17 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 45/100 | 46/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 3/10 | 3/10 |
| Momentum | 72/100 | 43/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 0/100 | 47/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
YieldMax MRNA Option Income Strategy ETF vs YieldMax TSLA Option Income Strategy ETF
TSLY leads
TSLY leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from MRNY.
Fragile: 1 of 3 evidence groups support TSLY, and the lead recently changed hands.
YieldMax MRNA Option Income Strategy ETF
YieldMax TSLA Option Income Strategy ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TSLY over MRNY, 46 versus 45 as of Oct 21, 2026. TSLY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience, while MRNY holds the stronger momentum profile. TSLY also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor TSLY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. TSLY lead: Reversed — MRNY led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TSLY now leads by 1.
Compare YieldMax MRNA Option Income Strategy ETF and YieldMax TSLA Option Income Strategy ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
MRNY vs TSLY: 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 | MRNY | TSLY | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 1% | 1.07% | MRNY |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 15 | 15 | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 38.96% | 81.23% | TSLY |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -35.8% | -52.7% | MRNY |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 181.1% | 38.5% | TSLY |
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 MRNY and TSLY 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 Resilience0 vs 47TSLY +47
- Momentum72 vs 43MRNY +29
- Quality44 vs 47Even
1 of 3 evidence groups favor TSLY. TSLY’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience; MRNY keeps a meaningful momentum 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: Momentum +8
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
TSLY's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MRNY and TSLY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TSLY (YieldMax TSLA Option Income Strategy ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience.
MRNY (YieldMax MRNA Option Income Strategy ETF): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 65.2% against 30.1%.
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 | MRNY | TSLY | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 1% | 1.07% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 15 | 15 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 300,891 | 480,979 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 181.1% | 38.5% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -35.8% | -52.7% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.05 | -1.62 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.64 | 1.87 | 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.
MRNY vs TSLY: five-year payout growth
MRNY began paying distributions in 2023, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. TSLY began paying distributions in 2023, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | MRNY | TSLY |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $21.459 | $34.231 |
| 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
1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor TSLY. 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 | 45 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | MRNY | Price vs 50-day 33.5% vs 0.9%; vs 200-day 109.8% vs -22.5% |
| Risk Resilience | TSLY | Risk Resilience 0 vs 47 |
| 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 MRNY and TSLY 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 TSLY.
How the comparison changed
99 daily snapshots · Jun 22 – Oct 20TSLY lead: Reversed — MRNY led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TSLY now leads by 1.
- Today
- TSLY +1
- 45 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- MRNY +1
- 43 vs 42
- 30 sessions ago
- MRNY +7
- 47 vs 40
- 90 sessions ago
- TSLY +3
- 33 vs 36
The lead changed hands 10 times in this window, most recently on Oct 19 when TSLY moved ahead of MRNY.
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.
4 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only MRNY
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (58.76%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.26%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
Only TSLY
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (26.64%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bearish Crossover.
MRNY is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.06%, AIQ +3 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +2.76%, 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.
- 1MRNY closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 47 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSLY's edge.
- 2MRNY's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3TSLY starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
MRNY leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | MRNY | TSLY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 9.2% | -1.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 18.7% | -5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 171.1% | -14.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 138.1% | -27.4% |
| Year to date | 196.7% | -42.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 166.5% | -47% |
Technicals
MRNY has the stronger structure| Metric | MRNY | TSLY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 62.8 | 51.9 |
| ADX (14) | 48.5 | 16.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 33.5% | 0.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 109.8% | -22.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 65.2% | 30.1% |
Risk
TSLY is the more resilient| Metric | MRNY | TSLY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.64 | 1.87 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.05 | -1.62 |
| Sortino ratio | 4.37 | -2.17 |
| Max drawdown | -35.8% | -52.7% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -49.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 181.1% | 38.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.7% | -3.8% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF is more diversified, MRNY or TSLY?
They hold a similar number of positions: 15 for MRNY and 15 for TSLY.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
MRNY has the lower expense ratio, 1% a year against 1.07% for TSLY.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
TSLY, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 81.23% against 38.96% for MRNY.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
MRNY has been more volatile over the past year, at 181.1% annualized against 38.5% for TSLY.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
MRNY fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -35.8% against -52.7% for TSLY.
Compare MRNY and TSLY 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.