PLTY vs QYLD: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
PLTY and QYLD are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. PLTY is YieldMax PLTR Option Income Strategy ETF, while QYLD is Global X - Nasdaq 100 Covered Call ETF. QYLD is broader by holdings count, with 104 positions versus 16 for PLTY. QYLD has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has QYLD ahead on AIQ Score, 46 versus 41.
What is the main difference between PLTY and QYLD?
QYLD holds 104 positions to PLTY's 16.
| Metric | PLTY | QYLD |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 1.07% | 0.6% |
| Holdings | 16 | 104 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 71.28% | 11.83% |
| Average volume | 189,740 | 4,372,671 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -42% | +4.7% |
| YTD return | -30.2% | +2.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 53.2% | 11.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -60.8% | -7% |
| Beta | 1.77 | 0.74 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.79 | 0.15 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.28 | 0.19 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 41/100 | 46/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 3/10 |
| Momentum | 38/100 | 31/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 43/100 | 71/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
YieldMax PLTR Option Income Strategy ETF vs Global X - Nasdaq 100 Covered Call ETF
QYLD leads
QYLD leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality.
Competitive: 3 of 3 evidence groups support QYLD, and its current signal state is conflicted.
YieldMax PLTR Option Income Strategy ETF
Global X - Nasdaq 100 Covered Call ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QYLD over PLTY, 46 versus 41 as of Oct 24, 2026. QYLD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while PLTY holds the stronger momentum profile. QYLD also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor QYLD today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. QYLD lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare YieldMax PLTR Option Income Strategy ETF and Global X - Nasdaq 100 Covered Call ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
PLTY vs QYLD: 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 | PLTY | QYLD | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 1.07% | 0.6% | QYLD |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 16 | 104 | QYLD |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 71.28% | 11.83% | PLTY |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -60.8% | -7% | QYLD |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 53.2% | 11.8% | QYLD |
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 PLTY and QYLD 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 Resilience43 vs 71QYLD +28
- Quality43 vs 63QYLD +20
- Momentum38 vs 31PLTY +7
3 of 3 evidence groups favor QYLD. QYLD’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; PLTY keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-23, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-22.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
QYLD's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PLTY and QYLD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
QYLD (Global X - Nasdaq 100 Covered Call ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
PLTY (YieldMax PLTR Option Income Strategy ETF): the counter-case, on momentum — but at materially higher volatility, 39% against 10.6%.
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 | PLTY | QYLD | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 1.07% | 0.6% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 16 | 104 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 189,740 | 4,372,671 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 53.2% | 11.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -60.8% | -7% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.79 | 0.15 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.77 | 0.74 | 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.
PLTY vs QYLD: five-year payout growth
QYLD grew its split-adjusted payout at -4.33% a year over 2020-2025. PLTY began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | PLTY | QYLD |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $57.963 | $2.041 |
| Peer rank | not ranked | #3 of 3 |
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 QYLD. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | QYLD | 41 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | QYLD | Price vs 50-day -1.9% vs -1.7%; vs 200-day -1.9% vs 0.8% |
| Risk Resilience | QYLD | Risk Resilience 43 vs 71 |
| 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 PLTY and QYLD 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 narrow at 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 QYLD.
How the comparison changed
48 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 23QYLD lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QYLD +5
- 41 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- QYLD +5
- 54 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- QYLD +3
- 55 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 22 when QYLD moved ahead of PLTY.
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.
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral
Only PLTY
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.03%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.54%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
3 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only QYLD
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.50%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.72%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bearish Crossover.
QYLD 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 -0.14%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.14%, 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.
- 1PLTY closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to QYLD's edge.
- 2PLTY's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3QYLD's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 2 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 | PLTY | QYLD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 4.2% | -1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.2% | -2.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 19.5% | 3.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -0.4% | 1.1% |
| Year to date | -30.2% | 2.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -42% | 4.7% |
Technicals
QYLD has the stronger structure| Metric | PLTY | QYLD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46.4 | 24.5 |
| ADX (14) | 20.2 | 25.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.9% | -1.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.9% | 0.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 39% | 10.6% |
Risk
QYLD is the more resilient| Metric | PLTY | QYLD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.77 | 0.74 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.79 | 0.15 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.28 | 0.19 |
| Max drawdown | -60.8% | -7% |
| Current drawdown | -46.2% | -3.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 53.2% | 11.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.5% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between PLTY and QYLD?
QYLD holds 104 positions to PLTY's 16.
Which ETF is more diversified, PLTY or QYLD?
QYLD holds more positions: 104 versus 16 for PLTY.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QYLD has the lower expense ratio, 0.6% a year against 1.07% for PLTY.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
PLTY, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 71.28% against 11.83% for QYLD.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
PLTY has been more volatile over the past year, at 53.2% annualized against 11.8% for QYLD.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
QYLD fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -7% against -60.8% for PLTY.
Compare PLTY and QYLD 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.