QQQI vs QYLD ETF Comparison
Compare QQQI and QYLD across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between QQQI and QYLD?
QQQI is NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF, while QYLD is Global X - Nasdaq 100 Covered Call ETF. QQQI is tied to Equity; QYLD is tied to Equity. QQQI is broader by holdings count, with 105 positions versus 102 for QYLD. QQQI is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
| Metric | QQQI | QYLD | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.68% | 0.6% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $14.1B | $8.3B | Fund |
| Holdings | 105 | 102 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | 75.7% | 75% | Fund |
| Average volume | 201,630 | 9,235,124 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Equity | Equity | Fund |
| Annualized volatility | 16.9% | 11.6% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -13.7% | -7% | Risk |
| Beta | 1.18 | 0.74 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.06 | 0.55 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | 0.09 | 0.69 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 51/100 | 56/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 6/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 38/100 | 67/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 83/100 | 73/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF vs Global X - Nasdaq 100 Covered Call ETF
QYLD leads
QYLD leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, and the lead has widened from 1 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support QYLD, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF
Global X - Nasdaq 100 Covered Call ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QYLD over QQQI, 56 versus 51 as of Sep 5, 2026. QYLD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while QQQI holds the stronger risk resilience profile. QYLD also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor QYLD today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. QYLD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 5 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.
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.
- Momentum25%38 vs 67QYLD +29
- Risk Resilience15%83 vs 73QQQI +10
- Value30%32 vs 30Even
- Quality30%65 vs 64Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor QYLD. QYLD’s edge is concentrated in momentum; QQQI keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum +6
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
QYLD's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
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
QYLD (Global X - Nasdaq 100 Covered Call ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
QQQI (NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
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
QYLDQYLD on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
QYLDQYLD on the Momentum factor, by 29 points.
Lower downside
QQQIQQQI on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 | QQQI | QYLD | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.68% | 0.6% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $14.1B | $8.3B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 10 | 103 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 201,630 | 9,235,124 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 16.9% | 11.6% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -13.7% | -7% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.06 | 0.55 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.18 | 0.74 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
QQQI and QYLD share 148.61% of their weighted exposure across 102 common holdings.
QQQI is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 75.69% of the fund, against 75% for QYLD (105 holdings vs 102). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
3 holdings are unique to QQQI and 0 to QYLD. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | QQQI | QYLD | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple Inc | 14.68% | 15.1% | 14.68% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 11.61% | 11.87% | 11.61% |
| MUMicron Technology Inc | 9.97% | 9.35% | 9.35% |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 8.7% | 8.73% | 8.7% |
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 8.73% | 8.66% | 8.66% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 6.73% | 6.44% | 6.44% |
| WMTWalmart Inc | 4.51% | 4.58% | 4.51% |
| INTCIntel Corp | 4.26% | 3.99% | 3.99% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, QQQI or QYLD?
QQQI currently has more reported holdings, with 105 positions versus 102.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QYLD 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?
QQQI has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
QYLD has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
QYLD currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 56 to 51.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 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 | 51 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 32 vs 30 |
| Technicals | QYLD | Price vs 50-day 0.1% vs 1.6%; vs 200-day 1.1% vs 3% |
| Risk Resilience | QQQI | Risk Resilience 83 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (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 QYLD.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3QYLD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QYLD +5
- 51 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- QYLD +4
- 52 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- QYLD +1
- 57 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 55 vs 55
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Aug 19 when QYLD moved ahead of QQQI.
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
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.17%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.15%)
5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.55%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.1%)
QQQI is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 up over the latest session (price +0.18%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.16%, 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.
- 1QQQI closes the Momentum gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to QYLD's edge.
- 2QQQI's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3QYLD's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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.
Technicals
QYLD has the stronger structure| Metric | QQQI | QYLD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.2 | 56.5 |
| ADX (14) | 15.6 | 11.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.1% | 1.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.1% | 3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 11.4% | 7.2% |
Risk
QQQI is the more resilient| Metric | QQQI | QYLD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.18 | 0.74 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.06 | 0.55 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.09 | 0.69 |
| Max drawdown | -13.7% | -7% |
| Current drawdown | -5.3% | -1% |
| Annualized volatility | 16.9% | 11.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.8% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, QQQI or QYLD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, QYLD is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 56 against QQQI's 51. The edge comes from momentum. QQQI is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. 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 QQQI or QYLD the better buy right now?
QYLD carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor QYLD over QQQI?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. QYLD leads Momentum by 29 points; QQQI leads Risk Resilience by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, QQQI or QYLD?
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, QQQI or QYLD?
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, QQQI or QYLD?
QYLD on the Momentum factor, by 29 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, QQQI or QYLD?
QQQI is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. QQQI on Risk Resilience, by 10 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is QQQI more profitable than QYLD?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is QYLD's lead over QQQI getting stronger or weaker?
QYLD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 5 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has changed hands 9 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-19, when QYLD moved ahead of QQQI.
What would change the QQQI vs QYLD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: QQQI closes the Momentum gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to QYLD's edge; QQQI's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; QYLD's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about QQQI and QYLD?
QQQI: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. QYLD: 5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on QQQI is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On QYLD it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare QQQI and QYLD with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.