RDTE vs SNOY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
RDTE and SNOY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. RDTE is Roundhill Investments - Russell 2000 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF, while SNOY is YieldMax SNOW Option Income Strategy ETF. SNOY is broader by holdings count, with 17 positions versus 5 for RDTE. RDTE has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has RDTE ahead on AIQ Score, 44 versus 30.
What is the main difference between RDTE and SNOY?
SNOY holds 17 positions to RDTE's 5.
| Metric | RDTE | SNOY |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.97% | 1% |
| Holdings | 5 | 17 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 44.2% | 68.15% |
| Average volume | 110,201 | 144,922 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -22.7% | -30.9% |
| YTD return | -13.2% | -15.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 17.8% | 57.4% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -24.6% | -61% |
| Beta | 1.12 | 1.21 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.53 | -0.44 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.12 | -0.72 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 44/100 | 30/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 3/10 | 1/10 |
| Momentum | 28/100 | 33/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 81/100 | 10/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Roundhill Investments - Russell 2000 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF vs YieldMax SNOW Option Income Strategy ETF
RDTE leads
RDTE leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 9 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 2 of 3 evidence groups support RDTE, and its lead is widening.
Roundhill Investments - Russell 2000 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF
YieldMax SNOW Option Income Strategy ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors RDTE over SNOY, 44 versus 30 as of Oct 21, 2026. RDTE's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience, while SNOY holds the stronger momentum profile. RDTE also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor RDTE today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. RDTE lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Roundhill Investments - Russell 2000 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF and YieldMax SNOW Option Income Strategy ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
RDTE 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 | RDTE | SNOY | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.97% | 1% | RDTE |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 5 | 17 | SNOY |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 44.2% | 68.15% | SNOY |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -24.6% | -61% | RDTE |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 17.8% | 57.4% | RDTE |
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 RDTE 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 Resilience81 vs 10RDTE +71
- Momentum28 vs 33SNOY +5
- Quality38 vs 38Even
2 of 3 evidence groups favor RDTE. RDTE’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience; SNOY 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 +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 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.
RDTE's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — RDTE and SNOY 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, led by risk resilience.
SNOY (YieldMax SNOW Option Income Strategy ETF): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 41.8% against 13.1%.
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 | RDTE | SNOY | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.97% | 1% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 5 | 17 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 110,201 | 144,922 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 17.8% | 57.4% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -24.6% | -61% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.53 | -0.44 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.12 | 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.
RDTE vs SNOY: five-year payout growth
RDTE began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. SNOY began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | RDTE | SNOY |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $14.727 | $10.382 |
| 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
2 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 | 44 vs 30 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | SNOY | Price vs 50-day -5.9% vs -8.2%; vs 200-day -10.6% vs 4% |
| Risk Resilience | RDTE | Risk Resilience 81 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 RDTE and SNOY and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 RDTE.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20RDTE lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- RDTE +14
- 44 vs 30
- 7 sessions ago
- RDTE +7
- 43 vs 36
- 30 sessions ago
- RDTE +9
- 43 vs 34
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Oct 14 when RDTE moved ahead of SNOY.
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.
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral
Only RDTE
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.74%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.29%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.6%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only SNOY
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.85%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.36%)
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bearish Crossover.
SNOY 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 +0.47%, AIQ +1 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 71 points behind, the largest single contributor to RDTE's edge.
- 2SNOY's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3RDTE starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
RDTE leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | RDTE | SNOY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.7% | -11.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.2% | -9.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -10.8% | -2.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -12% | 35.9% |
| Year to date | -13.2% | -15.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -22.7% | -30.9% |
Technicals
SNOY has the stronger structure| Metric | RDTE | SNOY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 33.8 | 32.7 |
| ADX (14) | 48 | 16.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.9% | -8.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -10.6% | 4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.1% | 41.8% |
Risk
RDTE is the more resilient| Metric | RDTE | SNOY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.12 | 1.21 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.53 | -0.44 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.12 | -0.72 |
| Max drawdown | -24.6% | -61% |
| Current drawdown | -23.5% | -36.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 17.8% | 57.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -5.3% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between RDTE and SNOY?
SNOY holds 17 positions to RDTE's 5.
Which ETF is more diversified, RDTE or SNOY?
SNOY holds more positions: 17 versus 5 for RDTE.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
RDTE has the lower expense ratio, 0.97% 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 44.2% for RDTE.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
SNOY has been more volatile over the past year, at 57.4% annualized against 17.8% for RDTE.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
RDTE fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -24.6% against -61% for SNOY.
Compare RDTE 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.