QQQI vs QYLD: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
QQQI and QYLD are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. QQQI is NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF, while QYLD is Global X - Nasdaq 100 Covered Call ETF. QYLD has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has QQQI ahead on AIQ Score, 49 versus 47.
What is the main difference between QQQI and QYLD?
QQQI and QYLD hold essentially the same portfolio: 98% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | QQQI | QYLD |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.68% | 0.6% |
| Holdings | 105 | 104 |
| Top-10 concentration | 46.5% | 46.7% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 14.11% | 11.71% |
| Average volume | 5,094,128 | 4,359,233 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +0.1% | +6.3% |
| YTD return | +0.6% | +3.5% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 17.1% | 11.7% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -13.7% | -7% |
| Beta | 1.20 | 0.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.18 | 0.21 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.26 | 0.26 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 49/100 | 47/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 3/10 |
| Momentum | 30/100 | 34/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 80/100 | 73/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF vs Global X - Nasdaq 100 Covered Call ETF
QQQI leads
QQQI leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support QQQI, and its current signal state is conflicted.
NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF
Global X - Nasdaq 100 Covered Call ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QQQI over QYLD, 49 versus 47 as of Oct 21, 2026. QQQI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience, while QYLD holds the stronger momentum profile. QQQI also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor QQQI today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. QQQI lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF and Global X - Nasdaq 100 Covered Call ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
QQQI 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 | QQQI | QYLD | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.68% | 0.6% | QYLD |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 105 | 104 | Similar |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 46.5% | 46.7% | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 14.11% | 11.71% | QQQI |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -13.7% | -7% | QYLD |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 17.1% | 11.7% | 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 QQQI 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 Resilience80 vs 73QQQI +7
- Momentum30 vs 34QYLD +4
- Quality65 vs 63Even
- Value32 vs 30Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor QQQI. QQQI’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience; QYLD 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: Momentum -8
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.
QQQI's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QQQI and QYLD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
QQQI (NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience.
QYLD (Global X - Nasdaq 100 Covered Call ETF): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals.
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 | QQQI | QYLD | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.68% | 0.6% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 105 | 104 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 5,094,128 | 4,359,233 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 17.1% | 11.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -13.7% | -7% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.18 | 0.21 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.20 | 0.73 | 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
QQQI and QYLD share 98.29% of their weighted exposure across 101 common holdings.
3 holdings are unique to QQQI, and every QYLD holding is also in QQQI. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
QYLD is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 46.72% of the fund, against 46.49% for QQQI (104 holdings vs 105). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | QQQI | QYLD | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA CORP | 8.34% | 8.36% | 8.34% |
| AAPLAPPLE INC | 7.62% | 7.72% | 7.62% |
| MSFTMICROSOFT CORP | 5.81% | 5.83% | 5.81% |
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY INC | 4.78% | 4.81% | 4.78% |
| AMZNAMAZON.COM INC | 4.36% | 4.37% | 4.36% |
| AMDADVANCED MICRO DEVICES | 3.67% | 3.68% | 3.67% |
| GOOGLALPHABET INC-CL A | 3.11% | 3.12% | 3.11% |
| METAMETA PLATFORMS INC | 3.03% | 3.04% | 3.03% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What QQQI adds that QYLD doesn’t
| Holding | QQQI | QYLD |
|---|---|---|
| NDX 261016C29975000NDX US 10/16/26 C29975 | 0.33% | Not held |
| NDX 261016C30425000NDX US 10/16/26 C30425 | 0.19% | Not held |
| KHCKraft Heinz Co/The | 0.13% | Not held |
What QYLD adds that QQQI doesn’t
QYLD has no position of 0.01% or more that QQQI lacks or holds at under half the weight.
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.
QQQI vs QYLD: five-year payout growth
QYLD grew its split-adjusted payout at -4.33% a year over 2020-2025. QQQI began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | QQQI | QYLD |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $7.443 | $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
1 of 4 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 | 49 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 32 vs 30 |
| Technicals | QYLD | Price vs 50-day -1.8% vs -0.1%; vs 200-day -0.1% vs 1.9% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQI | Risk Resilience 80 vs 73 |
| 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 QQQI and QYLD 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (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
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20QQQI lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QQQI +2
- 49 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- QYLD +8
- 51 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQI +1
- 58 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- QQQI +2
- 60 vs 58
The lead changed hands 10 times in this window, most recently on Oct 19 when QQQI moved ahead of QYLD.
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 QQQI
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
4 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only QYLD
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.2%)
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.3%, AIQ -2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.55%, 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.
- 1QYLD closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 7 points behind, the largest single contributor to QQQI's edge.
- 2QYLD's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3QQQI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 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
QYLD leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | QQQI | QYLD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.1% | -2.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3% | -1.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.3% | 2.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0.9% | 3.6% |
| Year to date | 0.6% | 3.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 0.1% | 6.3% |
Technicals
QYLD has the stronger structure| Metric | QQQI | QYLD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 36.7 | 32.5 |
| ADX (14) | 19.3 | 19.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.8% | -0.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.1% | 1.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 12.9% | 8.5% |
Risk
QQQI is the more resilient| Metric | QQQI | QYLD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.2 | 0.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.18 | 0.21 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.26 | 0.26 |
| Max drawdown | -13.7% | -7% |
| Current drawdown | -6.1% | -2.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 17.1% | 11.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.8% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between QQQI and QYLD?
QQQI and QYLD hold essentially the same portfolio: 98% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do QQQI and QYLD overlap?
QQQI and QYLD share 98.29% of their weighted exposure across 101 common holdings. 3 holdings are unique to QQQI, and every QYLD holding is also in QQQI. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
Which ETF is more diversified, QQQI or QYLD?
They hold a similar number of positions: 105 for QQQI and 104 for QYLD.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QYLD has the lower expense ratio, 0.6% a year against 0.68% for QQQI.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
QQQI, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 14.11% against 11.71% for QYLD.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
QQQI has been more volatile over the past year, at 17.1% annualized against 11.7% for QYLD.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
QYLD fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -7% against -13.7% for QQQI.
Compare QQQI 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.