PLTW vs QQQY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
PLTW and QQQY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. PLTW is Roundhill Investments - PLTR WeeklyPay ETF, while QQQY is Defiance Nasdaq 100 Weekly Distribution ETF. PLTW has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has QQQY ahead on AIQ Score, 40 versus 36.
| Metric | PLTW | QQQY |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.99% | 1.01% |
| Holdings | 5 | 5 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 67.97% | 34% |
| Average volume | 163,542 | 102,294 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -45.6% | -13.4% |
| YTD return | -34.3% | -8.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 72% | 18.6% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -70.2% | -21.6% |
| Beta | 2.36 | 1.31 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.56 | -0.93 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.99 | -1.31 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 36/100 | 40/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 2/10 |
| Momentum | 47/100 | 25/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 14/100 | 80/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Roundhill Investments - PLTR WeeklyPay ETF vs Defiance Nasdaq 100 Weekly Distribution ETF
QQQY leads
QQQY leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience.
Fragile: 2 of 3 evidence groups support QQQY, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Roundhill Investments - PLTR WeeklyPay ETF
Defiance Nasdaq 100 Weekly Distribution ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QQQY over PLTW, 40 versus 36 as of Oct 21, 2026. QQQY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience, while PLTW holds the stronger momentum profile. QQQY also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor QQQY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. QQQY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Roundhill Investments - PLTR WeeklyPay ETF and Defiance Nasdaq 100 Weekly Distribution ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
PLTW vs QQQY: 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 | PLTW | QQQY | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.99% | 1.01% | PLTW |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 5 | 5 | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 67.97% | 34% | PLTW |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -70.2% | -21.6% | QQQY |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 72% | 18.6% | QQQY |
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 PLTW and QQQY 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 Resilience14 vs 80QQQY +66
- Momentum47 vs 25PLTW +22
- Quality39 vs 38Even
2 of 3 evidence groups favor QQQY. QQQY’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience; PLTW 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: 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.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
QQQY's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PLTW and QQQY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
QQQY (Defiance Nasdaq 100 Weekly Distribution ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience.
PLTW (Roundhill Investments - PLTR WeeklyPay ETF): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 48.7% against 14.5%.
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 | PLTW | QQQY | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.99% | 1.01% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 5 | 5 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 163,542 | 102,294 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 72% | 18.6% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -70.2% | -21.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.56 | -0.93 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 2.36 | 1.31 | 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.
PLTW vs QQQY: five-year payout growth
PLTW began paying distributions in 2025, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. QQQY began paying distributions in 2023, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | PLTW | QQQY |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $27.035 | $10.678 |
| 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
2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor QQQY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | QQQY | 36 vs 40 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | PLTW | Price vs 50-day 4.6% vs -3.1%; vs 200-day 1.1% vs -5.3% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQY | Risk Resilience 14 vs 80 |
| 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 PLTW and QQQY 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 4 points. (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 QQQY.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20QQQY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QQQY +4
- 36 vs 40
- 7 sessions ago
- PLTW +6
- 46 vs 40
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQY +2
- 46 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Oct 19 when QQQY moved ahead of PLTW.
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 / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only PLTW
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.04%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.89%)
1 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only QQQY
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.50%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.46%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bearish Crossover.
QQQY 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 +5.5%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.79%, 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.
- 1PLTW closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 66 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQY's edge.
- 2PLTW's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3QQQY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 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
Split across windows| Metric | PLTW | QQQY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -10.7% | -3.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1% | -6.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 41.1% | -5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0.8% | -4.1% |
| Year to date | -34.3% | -8.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -45.6% | -13.4% |
Technicals
PLTW has the stronger structure| Metric | PLTW | QQQY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 48.9 | 28.5 |
| ADX (14) | 20.3 | 25.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.6% | -3.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.1% | -5.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 48.7% | 14.5% |
Risk
QQQY is the more resilient| Metric | PLTW | QQQY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.36 | 1.31 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.56 | -0.93 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.99 | -1.31 |
| Max drawdown | -70.2% | -21.6% |
| Current drawdown | -51.8% | -15.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 72% | 18.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7% | -2% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF is more diversified, PLTW or QQQY?
They hold a similar number of positions: 5 for PLTW and 5 for QQQY.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
PLTW has the lower expense ratio, 0.99% a year against 1.01% for QQQY.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
PLTW, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 67.97% against 34% for QQQY.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
PLTW has been more volatile over the past year, at 72% annualized against 18.6% for QQQY.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
QQQY fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -21.6% against -70.2% for PLTW.
Compare PLTW and QQQY 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.