QYLD vs RDTE: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
QYLD and RDTE are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. QYLD is Global X - Nasdaq 100 Covered Call ETF, while RDTE is Roundhill Investments - Russell 2000 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF. QYLD is broader by holdings count, with 104 positions versus 5 for RDTE. QYLD has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has QYLD ahead on AIQ Score, 47 versus 44.
What is the main difference between QYLD and RDTE?
QYLD puts 60% of its assets in Technology, while RDTE spreads across 11 sectors with none above 21%.
| Metric | QYLD | RDTE |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.6% | 0.97% |
| Holdings | 104 | 5 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 11.71% | 44.2% |
| Average volume | 4,359,233 | 110,201 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +6.3% | -22.7% |
| YTD return | +3.5% | -13.2% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 11.7% | 17.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -7% | -24.6% |
| Beta | 0.73 | 1.12 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.21 | -1.53 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.26 | -2.12 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 47/100 | 44/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 3/10 | 3/10 |
| Momentum | 34/100 | 28/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 73/100 | 81/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Global X - Nasdaq 100 Covered Call ETF vs Roundhill Investments - Russell 2000 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF
QYLD leads
QYLD leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 14 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 1 of 3 evidence groups support QYLD, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Global X - Nasdaq 100 Covered Call ETF
Roundhill Investments - Russell 2000 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QYLD over RDTE, 47 versus 44 as of Oct 21, 2026. QYLD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while RDTE holds the stronger risk resilience profile. QYLD also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor QYLD today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. QYLD lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Global X - Nasdaq 100 Covered Call ETF and Roundhill Investments - Russell 2000 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
QYLD 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 | QYLD | RDTE | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.6% | 0.97% | QYLD |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 104 | 5 | QYLD |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 11.71% | 44.2% | RDTE |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -7% | -24.6% | QYLD |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 11.7% | 17.8% | 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 QYLD 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.
- Quality63 vs 38QYLD +25
- Risk Resilience73 vs 81RDTE +8
- Momentum34 vs 28QYLD +6
1 of 3 evidence groups favor QYLD. QYLD’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; RDTE keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
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.
QYLD's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QYLD and RDTE 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 quality and momentum.
RDTE (Roundhill Investments - Russell 2000 0DTE Covered Call Strategy 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 | QYLD | RDTE | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.6% | 0.97% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 104 | 5 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 4,359,233 | 110,201 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 11.7% | 17.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -7% | -24.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.21 | -1.53 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.73 | 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.
How much of the same holdings they own
QYLD and RDTE share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
101 holdings are unique to QYLD, and 4 holdings are unique to RDTE. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
What QYLD adds that RDTE doesn’t
| Holding | QYLD | RDTE |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA CORP | 8.36% | Not held |
| AAPLAPPLE INC | 7.72% | Not held |
| MSFTMICROSOFT CORP | 5.83% | Not held |
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY INC | 4.81% | Not held |
| AMZNAMAZON.COM INC | 4.37% | Not held |
| AMDADVANCED MICRO DEVICES | 3.68% | Not held |
What RDTE adds that QYLD doesn’t
| Holding | RDTE | QYLD |
|---|---|---|
| 4RUT 270319C00252300RUT 03/19/2027 252.3 C | 48.16% | Not held |
| 4RUT 261218C002462004RUT US 12/18/26 C246.2 FLX | 43.17% | Not held |
| WEEKRoundhill Weekly T-Bill ETF | 5.69% | Not held |
| FGXXXFirst American Government Obligations Fund 12/01/2031 | 2.85% | Not held |
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.
QYLD vs RDTE: five-year payout growth
QYLD grew its split-adjusted payout at -4.33% a year over 2020-2025. RDTE began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | QYLD | RDTE |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $2.041 | $14.727 |
| Peer rank | #3 of 3 | 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 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 | Even | 47 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | QYLD | Price vs 50-day -0.1% vs -5.9%; vs 200-day 1.9% vs -10.6% |
| Risk Resilience | RDTE | Risk Resilience 73 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 QYLD 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 3 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 QYLD.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20QYLD lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QYLD +3
- 47 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- QYLD +16
- 59 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- QYLD +14
- 57 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 8 when QYLD moved ahead of RDTE.
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.
4 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only QYLD
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.53%)
- 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%)
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral
Only RDTE
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.74%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.6%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Contraction - Coiling, MACD Bearish Crossover.
QYLD 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 +0.55%, 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.
- 1RDTE closes the Quality gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to QYLD's edge.
- 2RDTE's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3QYLD's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 11 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate QYLD'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
QYLD leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | QYLD | RDTE |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.2% | -1.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.5% | -6.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.7% | -10.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.6% | -12% |
| Year to date | 3.5% | -13.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 6.3% | -22.7% |
Technicals
QYLD has the stronger structure| Metric | QYLD | RDTE |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 32.5 | 33.8 |
| ADX (14) | 19.1 | 48 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.1% | -5.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.9% | -10.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 8.5% | 13.1% |
Risk
RDTE is the more resilient| Metric | QYLD | RDTE |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.73 | 1.12 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.21 | -1.53 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.26 | -2.12 |
| Max drawdown | -7% | -24.6% |
| Current drawdown | -2.5% | -23.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 11.7% | 17.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -2% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between QYLD and RDTE?
QYLD puts 60% of its assets in Technology, while RDTE spreads across 11 sectors with none above 21%.
How much do QYLD and RDTE overlap?
QYLD and RDTE share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 101 holdings are unique to QYLD, and 4 holdings are unique to RDTE. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, QYLD or RDTE?
QYLD holds more positions: 104 versus 5 for RDTE.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QYLD has the lower expense ratio, 0.6% a year against 0.97% for RDTE.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
RDTE, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 44.2% against 11.71% for QYLD.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
RDTE has been more volatile over the past year, at 17.8% 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 -24.6% for RDTE.
Compare QYLD 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.