QYLD vs SNOY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
QYLD and SNOY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. QYLD is Global X - Nasdaq 100 Covered Call ETF, while SNOY is YieldMax SNOW Option Income Strategy ETF. QYLD is broader by holdings count, with 104 positions versus 17 for SNOY. QYLD has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has QYLD ahead on AIQ Score, 47 versus 30.
What is the main difference between QYLD and SNOY?
QYLD holds 104 positions to SNOY's 17.
| Metric | QYLD | SNOY |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.6% | 1% |
| Holdings | 104 | 17 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 11.71% | 68.15% |
| Average volume | 4,359,233 | 144,922 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +6.3% | -30.9% |
| YTD return | +3.5% | -15.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 11.7% | 57.4% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -7% | -61% |
| Beta | 0.73 | 1.21 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.21 | -0.44 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.26 | -0.72 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 47/100 | 30/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 3/10 | 1/10 |
| Momentum | 34/100 | 33/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 73/100 | 10/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Global X - Nasdaq 100 Covered Call ETF vs YieldMax SNOW Option Income Strategy ETF
QYLD leads
QYLD leads by 17 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 23 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 3 evidence groups support QYLD, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Global X - Nasdaq 100 Covered Call ETF
YieldMax SNOW Option Income Strategy ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QYLD over SNOY, 47 versus 30 as of Oct 21, 2026. QYLD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. QYLD also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor QYLD today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. QYLD lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Global X - Nasdaq 100 Covered Call ETF and YieldMax SNOW Option Income Strategy ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
QYLD vs SNOY: 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 | SNOY | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.6% | 1% | QYLD |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 104 | 17 | QYLD |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 11.71% | 68.15% | SNOY |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -7% | -61% | QYLD |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 11.7% | 57.4% | 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 SNOY 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 10QYLD +63
- Quality63 vs 38QYLD +25
- Momentum34 vs 33Even
3 of 3 evidence groups favor QYLD. QYLD’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
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 -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
QYLD's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QYLD and SNOY both carry a full feed there.
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 | SNOY | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.6% | 1% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 104 | 17 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 4,359,233 | 144,922 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 11.7% | 57.4% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -7% | -61% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.21 | -0.44 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.73 | 1.21 | 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.
QYLD vs SNOY: five-year payout growth
QYLD grew its split-adjusted payout at -4.33% a year over 2020-2025. SNOY began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | QYLD | SNOY |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $2.041 | $10.382 |
| 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
3 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 | QYLD | 47 vs 30 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | QYLD | Price vs 50-day -0.1% vs -8.2%; vs 200-day 1.9% vs 4% |
| Risk Resilience | QYLD | Risk Resilience 73 vs 10 |
| 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 SNOY and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 17 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 3 of 3 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 23 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QYLD +17
- 47 vs 30
- 7 sessions ago
- QYLD +23
- 59 vs 36
- 30 sessions ago
- QYLD +23
- 57 vs 34
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.59%)
- 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%)
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only SNOY
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.36%)
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, 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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.49%, 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.
- 1SNOY closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 63 points behind, the largest single contributor to QYLD's edge.
- 2SNOY's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 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 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 17-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 | SNOY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.2% | -11.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.5% | -9.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.7% | -2.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.6% | 35.9% |
| Year to date | 3.5% | -15.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 6.3% | -30.9% |
Technicals
QYLD has the stronger structure| Metric | QYLD | SNOY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 32.5 | 32.7 |
| ADX (14) | 19.1 | 16.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.1% | -8.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.9% | 4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 8.5% | 41.8% |
Risk
QYLD is the more resilient| Metric | QYLD | SNOY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.73 | 1.21 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.21 | -0.44 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.26 | -0.72 |
| Max drawdown | -7% | -61% |
| Current drawdown | -2.5% | -36.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 11.7% | 57.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -5.3% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between QYLD and SNOY?
QYLD holds 104 positions to SNOY's 17.
Which ETF is more diversified, QYLD or SNOY?
QYLD holds more positions: 104 versus 17 for SNOY.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QYLD has the lower expense ratio, 0.6% a year against 1% for SNOY.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
SNOY, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 68.15% against 11.71% for QYLD.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
SNOY has been more volatile over the past year, at 57.4% 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 -61% for SNOY.
Compare QYLD and SNOY 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.