QDTE vs QQQY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
QDTE and QQQY 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 QQQY is Defiance Nasdaq 100 Weekly Distribution ETF. QDTE is broader by holdings count, with 7 positions versus 5 for QQQY. QDTE has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has QDTE ahead on AIQ Score, 44 versus 40.
| Metric | QDTE | QQQY |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.96% | 1.01% |
| Holdings | 7 | 5 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 45.03% | 34.56% |
| Average volume | 519,912 | 101,549 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -22.2% | -16.7% |
| YTD return | -10.6% | -10.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 20.8% | 18.9% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -26.6% | -21.6% |
| Beta | 1.35 | 1.32 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.25 | -1.05 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.54 | -1.45 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 44/100 | 40/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 3/10 | 2/10 |
| Momentum | 24/100 | 25/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 68/100 | 77/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Roundhill Nasdaq-100 0DTE Covered Call ETF Strategy ETF vs Defiance Nasdaq 100 Weekly Distribution ETF
QDTE leads
QDTE leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 13 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 1 of 3 evidence groups support QDTE, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Roundhill Nasdaq-100 0DTE Covered Call ETF Strategy ETF
Defiance Nasdaq 100 Weekly Distribution ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QDTE over QQQY, 44 versus 40 as of Oct 24, 2026. QDTE's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while QQQY holds the stronger risk resilience profile. QDTE also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor QDTE today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. QDTE lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Roundhill Nasdaq-100 0DTE Covered Call ETF Strategy ETF and Defiance Nasdaq 100 Weekly Distribution ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
QDTE 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 | QDTE | QQQY | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.96% | 1.01% | QDTE |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 7 | 5 | QDTE |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 45.03% | 34.56% | QDTE |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -26.6% | -21.6% | QQQY |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 20.8% | 18.9% | 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 QDTE 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.
- Quality48 vs 38QDTE +10
- Risk Resilience68 vs 77QQQY +9
- Momentum24 vs 25Even
1 of 3 evidence groups favor QDTE. QDTE’s edge is concentrated in quality; QQQY keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 7 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Value +2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
QDTE's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QDTE and QQQY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
QDTE (Roundhill Nasdaq-100 0DTE Covered Call ETF Strategy ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
QQQY (Defiance Nasdaq 100 Weekly Distribution ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
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 | QQQY | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.96% | 1.01% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 7 | 5 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 519,912 | 101,549 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 20.8% | 18.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -26.6% | -21.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.25 | -1.05 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.35 | 1.32 | 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.
QDTE vs QQQY: five-year payout growth
QDTE began paying distributions in 2024, 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 | QDTE | QQQY |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $15.261 | $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
1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor QDTE. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | QDTE | 44 vs 40 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -4.7% vs -5.8%; vs 200-day -7.1% vs -7.5% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQY | Risk Resilience 68 vs 77 |
| 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 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)
- Only 1 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 QDTE.
How the comparison changed
48 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 23QDTE lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QDTE +4
- 44 vs 40
- 7 sessions ago
- QDTE +7
- 47 vs 40
- 30 sessions ago
- QDTE +13
- 63 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
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 / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only QDTE
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.4%)
1 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 6 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Death Cross Active, Keltner Channel Breakdown, RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
QDTE 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 -0.05%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1QQQY closes the Quality gap — currently 10 points behind, the largest single contributor to QDTE's edge.
- 2QQQY's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3QDTE's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 5 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate QDTE's advantage entirely.
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
QDTE leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | QDTE | QQQY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.9% | -1.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6% | -7.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.4% | -4.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -8.3% | -8.8% |
| Year to date | -10.6% | -10.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -22.2% | -16.7% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | QDTE | QQQY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 24.2 | 21.8 |
| ADX (14) | 28 | 31.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.7% | -5.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.1% | -7.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.7% | 18.1% |
Risk
QQQY is the more resilient| Metric | QDTE | QQQY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.35 | 1.32 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.25 | -1.05 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.54 | -1.45 |
| Max drawdown | -26.6% | -21.6% |
| Current drawdown | -24.6% | -17.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 20.8% | 18.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF is more diversified, QDTE or QQQY?
QDTE holds more positions: 7 versus 5 for QQQY.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QDTE has the lower expense ratio, 0.96% a year against 1.01% for QQQY.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
QDTE, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 45.03% against 34.56% for QQQY.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
QDTE has been more volatile over the past year, at 20.8% annualized against 18.9% for QQQY.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
QQQY fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -21.6% against -26.6% for QDTE.
Compare QDTE 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.