TSLW vs TSPY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
TSLW and TSPY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. TSLW is Roundhill Investments - TSLA WeeklyPay ETF, while TSPY is TappAlpha SPY Growth & Daily Income ETF. TSLW is broader by holdings count, with 6 positions versus 4 for TSPY. TSPY has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has TSPY ahead on AIQ Score, 48 versus 38.
| Metric | TSLW | TSPY |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.99% | 0.71% |
| Holdings | 6 | 4 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 75.48% | 14.08% |
| Average volume | 89,011 | 245,465 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -52.7% | +1.4% |
| YTD return | -47.3% | -0.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 53.6% | 12.9% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -61.6% | -12.9% |
| Beta | 2.60 | 0.93 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.26 | -0.18 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.79 | -0.26 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 38/100 | 48/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 3/10 |
| Momentum | 46/100 | 48/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 29/100 | 86/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Roundhill Investments - TSLA WeeklyPay ETF vs TappAlpha SPY Growth & Daily Income ETF
TSPY leads
TSPY leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 20 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 3 evidence groups support TSPY, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Roundhill Investments - TSLA WeeklyPay ETF
TappAlpha SPY Growth & Daily Income ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TSPY over TSLW, 48 versus 38 as of Oct 21, 2026. TSPY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. TSPY also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor TSPY today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. TSPY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Roundhill Investments - TSLA WeeklyPay ETF and TappAlpha SPY Growth & Daily Income ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
TSLW vs TSPY: 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 | TSLW | TSPY | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.99% | 0.71% | TSPY |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 6 | 4 | TSLW |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 75.48% | 14.08% | TSLW |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -61.6% | -12.9% | TSPY |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 53.6% | 12.9% | TSPY |
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 TSLW and TSPY 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 Resilience29 vs 86TSPY +57
- Quality36 vs 40TSPY +4
- Momentum46 vs 48Even
3 of 3 evidence groups favor TSPY. TSPY’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.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
TSPY's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TSLW and TSPY 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 | TSLW | TSPY | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.99% | 0.71% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 6 | 4 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 89,011 | 245,465 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 53.6% | 12.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -61.6% | -12.9% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.26 | -0.18 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 2.60 | 0.93 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
TSLW vs TSPY: five-year payout growth
TSLW began paying distributions in 2025, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. TSPY began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | TSLW | TSPY |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $21.721 | $3.492 |
| 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
3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor TSPY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | TSPY | 38 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | TSPY | Price vs 50-day 3% vs 0%; vs 200-day -23.4% vs 0.6% |
| Risk Resilience | TSPY | Risk Resilience 29 vs 86 |
| 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 TSLW and TSPY 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 moderate at 10 points.
- 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 TSPY.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20TSPY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TSPY +10
- 38 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- TSPY +13
- 34 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- TSPY +20
- 29 vs 49
- 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.
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral
Only TSLW
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (29.08%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.80%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only TSPY
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.25%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.94%)
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bearish Crossover.
TSPY 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +4.21%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.63%, 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.
- 1TSLW closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 57 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSPY's edge.
- 2TSLW's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3TSPY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 10-point move would eliminate TSPY'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
TSPY leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | TSLW | TSPY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.7% | -1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.6% | -1.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -12.3% | -0.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -26.3% | 2.2% |
| Year to date | -47.3% | -0.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -52.7% | 1.4% |
Technicals
TSPY has the stronger structure| Metric | TSLW | TSPY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 56 | 49.1 |
| ADX (14) | 11 | 13.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3% | 0% |
| Price vs 200-day | -23.4% | 0.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 38.5% | 9.3% |
Risk
TSPY is the more resilient| Metric | TSLW | TSPY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.6 | 0.93 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.26 | -0.18 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.79 | -0.26 |
| Max drawdown | -61.6% | -12.9% |
| Current drawdown | -55.1% | -3.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 53.6% | 12.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.5% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF is more diversified, TSLW or TSPY?
TSLW holds more positions: 6 versus 4 for TSPY.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
TSPY has the lower expense ratio, 0.71% a year against 0.99% for TSLW.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
TSLW, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 75.48% against 14.08% for TSPY.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
TSLW has been more volatile over the past year, at 53.6% annualized against 12.9% for TSPY.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
TSPY fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -12.9% against -61.6% for TSLW.
Compare TSLW and TSPY 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.