NVDL vs ULTY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
NVDL and ULTY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. NVDL is GraniteShares 2x Long NVDA Daily ETF, while ULTY is YieldMax Ultra Option Income Strategy ETF. ULTY is broader by holdings count, with 101 positions versus 2 for NVDL. NVDL has the lower expense ratio.
What is the main difference between NVDL and ULTY?
ULTY holds 101 positions to NVDL's 2.
| Metric | NVDL | ULTY |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 1.06% | 1.4% |
| Holdings | 2 | 101 |
| Average volume | 12,939,520 | 476,225 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +11.4% | -54.8% |
| YTD return | +11.3% | -36.5% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 75% | 24.1% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -42.2% | -54.5% |
| Beta | 3.84 | 1.41 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.44 | -3.26 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.77 | -4.82 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 40/100 | 40/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 2/10 |
| Momentum | 34/100 | 24/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 2/100 | 58/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
GraniteShares 2x Long NVDA Daily ETF vs YieldMax Ultra Option Income Strategy ETF
NVDL and ULTY are effectively level
NVDL and ULTY are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
GraniteShares 2x Long NVDA Daily ETF
YieldMax Ultra Option Income Strategy ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate NVDL and ULTY as of Oct 21, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare GraniteShares 2x Long NVDA Daily ETF and YieldMax Ultra Option Income Strategy ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
NVDL vs ULTY: 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 | NVDL | ULTY | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 1.06% | 1.4% | NVDL |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 2 | 101 | ULTY |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -42.2% | -54.5% | NVDL |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 75% | 24.1% | ULTY |
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 NVDL and ULTY 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 Resilience2 vs 58ULTY +56
- Quality64 vs 50NVDL +14
- Momentum34 vs 24NVDL +10
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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 -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — NVDL and ULTY both carry a full feed there.
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 | NVDL | ULTY | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 1.06% | 1.4% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 2 | 101 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 12,939,520 | 476,225 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 75% | 24.1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -42.2% | -54.5% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.44 | -3.26 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 3.84 | 1.41 | 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.
NVDL vs ULTY: five-year payout growth
NVDL began paying distributions in 2023, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. ULTY began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | NVDL | ULTY |
|---|---|---|
| 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
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 40 vs 40 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | NVDL | Price vs 50-day -2.8% vs -8.6%; vs 200-day 3.2% vs -21.8% |
| Risk Resilience | ULTY | Risk Resilience 2 vs 58 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20NVDL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 40 vs 40
- 7 sessions ago
- NVDL +1
- 41 vs 40
- 30 sessions ago
- NVDL +8
- 51 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- NVDL +9
- 56 vs 47
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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only NVDL
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.60%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.70%)
1 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ULTY
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (17.48%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bearish Crossover.
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 +5.02%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.51%, AIQ 0 points).
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
NVDL leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | NVDL | ULTY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -10.7% | -5.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -11.6% | -9.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.3% | -13% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.6% | -25.7% |
| Year to date | 11.3% | -36.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 11.4% | -54.8% |
Technicals
NVDL has the stronger structure| Metric | NVDL | ULTY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 35.6 | 29.5 |
| ADX (14) | 17.8 | 33.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.8% | -8.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.2% | -21.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 46.6% | 21.7% |
Risk
ULTY is the more resilient| Metric | NVDL | ULTY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.84 | 1.41 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.44 | -3.26 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.77 | -4.82 |
| Max drawdown | -42.2% | -54.5% |
| Current drawdown | -24.1% | -54.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 75% | 24.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.3% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between NVDL and ULTY?
ULTY holds 101 positions to NVDL's 2.
Which ETF is more diversified, NVDL or ULTY?
ULTY holds more positions: 101 versus 2 for NVDL.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
NVDL has the lower expense ratio, 1.06% a year against 1.4% for ULTY.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
NVDL has been more volatile over the past year, at 75% annualized against 24.1% for ULTY.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
NVDL fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -42.2% against -54.5% for ULTY.
Compare NVDL and ULTY 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.