QDTE vs QQQI: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
QDTE and QQQI are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. QDTE is Roundhill Nasdaq-100 0DTE Covered Call ETF Strategy ETF, while QQQI is NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF. QQQI is broader by holdings count, with 105 positions versus 7 for QDTE. QQQI has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has QQQI ahead on AIQ Score, 47 versus 44.
What is the main difference between QDTE and QQQI?
QQQI holds 105 positions to QDTE's 7, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | QDTE | QQQI |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.96% | 0.68% |
| Holdings | 7 | 105 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 45.03% | 14.51% |
| Average volume | 519,912 | 4,988,819 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -22.2% | -4.5% |
| YTD return | -10.6% | -2.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 20.8% | 17.2% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -26.6% | -13.7% |
| Beta | 1.35 | 1.20 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.25 | -0.30 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.54 | -0.43 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 44/100 | 47/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 3/10 | 3/10 |
| Momentum | 24/100 | 24/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 68/100 | 78/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Roundhill Nasdaq-100 0DTE Covered Call ETF Strategy ETF vs NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF
QQQI leads
QQQI leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from QDTE.
Fragile: 2 of 3 evidence groups support QQQI, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Roundhill Nasdaq-100 0DTE Covered Call ETF Strategy ETF
NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QQQI over QDTE, 47 versus 44 as of Oct 24, 2026. QQQI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. QQQI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor QQQI today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. QQQI lead: Reversed — QDTE led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; QQQI now leads by 3.
Compare Roundhill Nasdaq-100 0DTE Covered Call ETF Strategy ETF and NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
QDTE vs QQQI: 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 | QDTE | QQQI | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.96% | 0.68% | QQQI |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 7 | 105 | QQQI |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 45.03% | 14.51% | QDTE |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -26.6% | -13.7% | QQQI |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 20.8% | 17.2% | QQQI |
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 QDTE and QQQI 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.
- Quality48 vs 65QQQI +17
- Risk Resilience68 vs 78QQQI +10
- Momentum24 vs 24Even
2 of 3 evidence groups favor QQQI. QQQI’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
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 7 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Value +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
QQQI's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QDTE and QQQI 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 | QDTE | QQQI | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.96% | 0.68% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 7 | 105 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 519,912 | 4,988,819 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 20.8% | 17.2% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -26.6% | -13.7% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.25 | -0.30 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.35 | 1.20 | 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.
How much of the same holdings they own
QDTE and QQQI share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
6 holdings are unique to QDTE, and 104 holdings are unique to QQQI. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
What QDTE adds that QQQI doesn’t
| Holding | QDTE | QQQI |
|---|---|---|
| 4NDX 270319C02510150NDX 03/19/2027 2510.15 C | 25.83% | Not held |
| 4NDX 261218C024501004NDX US 12/18/26 C2450.1 FLX | 25.02% | Not held |
| 4NDX 270611C03059420NDX 06/11/2027 3059.42 C | 22.03% | Not held |
| 4NDX 260918C022500004NDX US 09/18/26 C2250 FLX | 18.14% | Not held |
| WEEKRoundhill Weekly T-Bill ETF | 5.01% | Not held |
| FGXXXFirst American Government Obligations Fund 12/01/2031 | 3.28% | Not held |
What QQQI adds that QDTE doesn’t
| Holding | QQQI | QDTE |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 8.34% | Not held |
| AAPLApple Inc | 7.62% | Not held |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.81% | Not held |
| MUMicron Technology Inc | 4.78% | Not held |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 4.36% | Not held |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 3.67% | 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.
QDTE vs QQQI: five-year payout growth
QDTE began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. QQQI began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | QDTE | QQQI |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $15.261 | $7.443 |
| 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 QQQI. 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 | 44 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | QQQI | Price vs 50-day -4.7% vs -4.1%; vs 200-day -7.1% vs -3% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQI | Risk Resilience 68 vs 78 |
| 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 QDTE and QQQI 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 QQQI.
How the comparison changed
48 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 23QQQI lead: Reversed — QDTE led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; QQQI now leads by 3.
- Today
- QQQI +3
- 44 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- QQQI +4
- 47 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- QDTE +2
- 63 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Oct 8 when QQQI moved ahead of QDTE.
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only QDTE
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.69%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.4%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
3 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only QQQI
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.19%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.40%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Keltner Channel Breakdown, RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce, MACD Bearish Crossover.
QQQI 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 +0.18%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price 0%, 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.
- 1QDTE closes the Quality gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQI's edge.
- 2QDTE's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3QQQI'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
QQQI leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | QDTE | QQQI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.9% | -1.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6% | -5.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.4% | 0% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -8.3% | -2.5% |
| Year to date | -10.6% | -2.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -22.2% | -4.5% |
Technicals
QQQI has the stronger structure| Metric | QDTE | QQQI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 24.2 | 23 |
| ADX (14) | 28 | 26.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.7% | -4.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.1% | -3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.7% | 15.4% |
Risk
QQQI is the more resilient| Metric | QDTE | QQQI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.35 | 1.2 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.25 | -0.3 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.54 | -0.43 |
| Max drawdown | -26.6% | -13.7% |
| Current drawdown | -24.6% | -8.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 20.8% | 17.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -1.8% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between QDTE and QQQI?
QQQI holds 105 positions to QDTE's 7, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do QDTE and QQQI overlap?
QDTE and QQQI share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 6 holdings are unique to QDTE, and 104 holdings are unique to QQQI. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, QDTE or QQQI?
QQQI holds more positions: 105 versus 7 for QDTE.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QQQI has the lower expense ratio, 0.68% a year against 0.96% for QDTE.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
QDTE, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 45.03% against 14.51% for QQQI.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
QDTE has been more volatile over the past year, at 20.8% annualized against 17.2% for QQQI.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
QQQI fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -13.7% against -26.6% for QDTE.
Compare QDTE and QQQI 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.