QDTE vs ULTY ETF Comparison
Compare QDTE and ULTY across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between QDTE and ULTY?
QDTE is Roundhill Investments - Innovation-100 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF, while ULTY is YieldMax Ultra Option Income Strategy ETF. QDTE is tied to Equity; ULTY is tied to Equity. ULTY is broader by holdings count, with 11 positions versus 6 for QDTE. QDTE is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
| Metric | QDTE | ULTY | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.97% | 1.4% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $958M | $748M | Fund |
| Holdings | 6 | 11 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | 99.9% | 37.2% | Fund |
| Average volume | 128,998 | 700,998 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Equity | Equity | Fund |
| 1Y return | - | -52.9% | Performance |
| YTD return | - | -29.7% | Performance |
| Annualized volatility | 20.5% | 23.9% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -26.6% | -55.3% | Risk |
| Beta | 1.33 | 1.35 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.00 | -3.12 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | -1.22 | -4.54 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 57/100 | 41/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 7/10 | 2/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | - | 29/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 73/100 | 62/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Roundhill Investments - Innovation-100 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF vs YieldMax Ultra Option Income Strategy ETF
QDTE leads
QDTE leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience.
Stable: 2 of 2 evidence groups support QDTE.
Roundhill Investments - Innovation-100 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF
YieldMax Ultra Option Income Strategy ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QDTE over ULTY, 57 versus 41 as of Sep 9, 2026. QDTE's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience. 2 of 2 covered evidence groups favor QDTE today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability.
Compare Roundhill Investments - Innovation-100 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF and YieldMax Ultra Option Income Strategy ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison for both ETFs using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare QDTE 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 Resilience73 vs 62QDTE +11
- Quality49 vs 50Even
2 of 2 evidence groups favor QDTE. QDTE’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-07, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-06.
Largest factor move: Quality +6
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
QDTE's lead widened by 4 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QDTE and ULTY both carry a full feed there.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
QDTEQDTE on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
QDTEQDTE on Risk Resilience, by 11 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
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 | ULTY | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.97% | 1.4% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $958M | $748M | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 6 | 112 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 128,998 | 700,998 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 20.5% | 23.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -26.6% | -55.3% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.00 | -3.12 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.33 | 1.35 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
QDTE and ULTY share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
QDTE is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 99.87% of the fund, against 37.21% for ULTY (6 holdings vs 11). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
6 holdings are unique to QDTE and 11 to ULTY. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, QDTE or ULTY?
ULTY currently has more reported holdings, with 11 positions versus 6.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QDTE has the lower reported expense ratio in the current fund profile.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
The current dataset does not show a higher-yield winner.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
ULTY has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
QDTE has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
QDTE currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 57 to 41.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 2 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 | 57 vs 41 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Risk Resilience | QDTE | Risk Resilience 73 vs 62 |
| 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 ULTY and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 16 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
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.
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.
No active signals
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (19.31%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.7%)
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 +0.07%, AIQ +4 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.27%, 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.
- 1ULTY closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to QDTE's edge.
- 2ULTY's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3QDTE starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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 | QDTE | ULTY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | — | -0.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | — | -3.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | — | -11.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | — | -18.4% |
| Year to date | — | -29.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | — | -52.9% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | QDTE | ULTY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | — | 34.8 |
| ADX (14) | — | 29.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | — | -3.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | — | -19.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | — | 17.5% |
Risk
QDTE is the more resilient| Metric | QDTE | ULTY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.33 | 1.35 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1 | -3.12 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.22 | -4.54 |
| Max drawdown | -26.6% | -55.3% |
| Current drawdown | -21.2% | -53.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 20.5% | 23.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, QDTE or ULTY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, QDTE is the stronger of the two as of Sep 9, 2026, scoring 57 against ULTY's 41. The edge comes from risk resilience. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is QDTE or ULTY the better buy right now?
QDTE carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 9, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 2 of 2 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor QDTE over ULTY?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. QDTE leads Risk Resilience by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, QDTE or ULTY?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, QDTE or ULTY?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, QDTE or ULTY?
The two are level on Momentum. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, QDTE or ULTY?
QDTE is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. QDTE on Risk Resilience, by 11 points. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is QDTE more profitable than ULTY?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
What would change the QDTE vs ULTY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ULTY closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to QDTE's edge; ULTY's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; QDTE starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; a 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.
What do the current signals say about QDTE and ULTY?
QDTE: No active signals. ULTY: 0 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral. On ULTY it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare QDTE and ULTY with others
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.