QQQY vs RDTE: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
QQQY and RDTE are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. QQQY is Defiance Nasdaq 100 Weekly Distribution ETF, while RDTE is Roundhill Investments - Russell 2000 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF. RDTE has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has RDTE ahead on AIQ Score, 44 versus 40.
| Metric | QQQY | RDTE |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 1.01% | 0.97% |
| Holdings | 5 | 5 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 34% | 44.2% |
| Average volume | 102,294 | 110,201 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -13.4% | -22.7% |
| YTD return | -8.4% | -13.2% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 18.6% | 17.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -21.6% | -24.6% |
| Beta | 1.31 | 1.12 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.93 | -1.53 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.31 | -2.12 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 40/100 | 44/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 3/10 |
| Momentum | 25/100 | 28/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 80/100 | 81/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Defiance Nasdaq 100 Weekly Distribution ETF vs Roundhill Investments - Russell 2000 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF
RDTE leads
RDTE leads by 4 AIQ points, having only recently taken the lead back from QQQY.
Fragile: 1 of 3 evidence groups support RDTE, and the lead recently changed hands.
Defiance Nasdaq 100 Weekly Distribution ETF
Roundhill Investments - Russell 2000 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors RDTE over QQQY, 44 versus 40 as of Oct 21, 2026. RDTE also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor RDTE today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. RDTE lead: Reversed — QQQY led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; RDTE now leads by 4.
Compare Defiance Nasdaq 100 Weekly Distribution ETF and Roundhill Investments - Russell 2000 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
QQQY vs RDTE: 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 | QQQY | RDTE | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 1.01% | 0.97% | RDTE |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 5 | 5 | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 34% | 44.2% | RDTE |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -21.6% | -24.6% | QQQY |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 18.6% | 17.8% | Similar |
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 QQQY and RDTE 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 vs 28Even
- Risk Resilience80 vs 81Even
- Quality38 vs 38Even
1 of 3 evidence groups favor RDTE. Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
RDTE's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QQQY and RDTE both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
RDTE (Roundhill Investments - Russell 2000 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF): the stronger current systematic profile.
QQQY (Defiance Nasdaq 100 Weekly Distribution ETF): the counter-case, on 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 | QQQY | RDTE | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 1.01% | 0.97% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 5 | 5 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 102,294 | 110,201 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 18.6% | 17.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -21.6% | -24.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.93 | -1.53 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.31 | 1.12 | 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.
QQQY vs RDTE: five-year payout growth
QQQY began paying distributions in 2023, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. RDTE began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | QQQY | RDTE |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $10.678 | $14.727 |
| 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 RDTE. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | RDTE | 40 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | QQQY | Price vs 50-day -3.1% vs -5.9%; vs 200-day -5.3% vs -10.6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 80 vs 81 |
| 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 QQQY and RDTE 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 lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 RDTE.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20RDTE lead: Reversed — QQQY led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; RDTE now leads by 4.
- Today
- RDTE +4
- 40 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- RDTE +3
- 40 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQY +5
- 48 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Oct 12 when RDTE moved ahead of QQQY.
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 / 4 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only QQQY
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral
Only RDTE
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.6%)
Both carry 5 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Death Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
QQQY 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.79%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.47%, 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's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 2RDTE starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 3A 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
QQQY leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | QQQY | RDTE |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.7% | -1.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.1% | -6.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -5% | -10.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -4.1% | -12% |
| Year to date | -8.4% | -13.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -13.4% | -22.7% |
Technicals
QQQY has the stronger structure| Metric | QQQY | RDTE |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 28.5 | 33.8 |
| ADX (14) | 25.8 | 48 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.1% | -5.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -5.3% | -10.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.5% | 13.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | QQQY | RDTE |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.31 | 1.12 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.93 | -1.53 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.31 | -2.12 |
| Max drawdown | -21.6% | -24.6% |
| Current drawdown | -15.4% | -23.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 18.6% | 17.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -2% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF is more diversified, QQQY or RDTE?
They hold a similar number of positions: 5 for QQQY and 5 for RDTE.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
RDTE has the lower expense ratio, 0.97% a year against 1.01% for QQQY.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
RDTE, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 44.2% against 34% for QQQY.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 18.6% annualized for QQQY and 17.8% for RDTE.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
QQQY fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -21.6% against -24.6% for RDTE.
Compare QQQY and RDTE 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.