TSPY vs ULTY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk

TSPY and ULTY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. TSPY is TappAlpha SPY Growth & Daily Income ETF, while ULTY is YieldMax Ultra Option Income Strategy ETF. ULTY is broader by holdings count, with 101 positions versus 4 for TSPY. TSPY has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has TSPY ahead on AIQ Score, 48 versus 40.

Market data as of Oct 21, 2026 market close· Fund characteristics as of Oct 21, 2026
TSPY
TappAlpha
vs
ULTY
YieldMax
TSPY
TappAlpha SPY Growth & Daily Income ETF
Issuer
TappAlpha
Inception
2024-08-14
ULTY
YieldMax Ultra Option Income Strategy ETF
Issuer
YieldMax
Inception
2024-02-28

What is the main difference between TSPY and ULTY?

ULTY holds 101 positions to TSPY's 4, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.

Expense ratio
TSPY
0.71%
ULTY
1.4%
Lower annual fund costTSPY
Holdings
TSPY
4
ULTY
101
Broader reported basketULTY
1Y return
TSPY
+1.4%
ULTY
-54.8%
Trailing performanceTSPY
Annualized volatility
TSPY
12.9%
ULTY
24.1%
Lower realized volatilityTSPY
MetricTSPYULTY
Fund
Expense ratio0.71%1.4%
Holdings4101
Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months14.08%98.01%
Average volume245,465476,225
Performance
1Y return+1.4%-54.8%
YTD return-0.7%-36.5%
Risk
Annualized volatility12.9%24.1%
Max drawdown (1Y)-12.9%-54.5%
Beta0.931.41
Sharpe ratio-0.18-3.26
Sortino ratio-0.26-4.82
AlgovestIQ
AIQ Score48/10040/100
AIQ Edge Score3/102/10
Momentum48/10024/100
Risk Resilience86/10058/100

AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison

TappAlpha SPY Growth & Daily Income ETF vs YieldMax Ultra Option Income Strategy ETF

Data as of Oct 21, 2026· market close· Coverage 60/66 fields· High confidence
AIQ VerdictCompetitiveAIQ Comparison Conviction 7/10

TSPY leads

TSPY leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum.

Competitive: 4 of 4 evidence groups support TSPY, and its current signal state is conflicted.

Evidence agreement: 4 of 4Comparison trend: Stable
TSPY

TappAlpha SPY Growth & Daily Income ETF

Leads
AIQ Score
48/100
AIQ Edge Score
3/10
ULTY

YieldMax Ultra Option Income Strategy ETF

AIQ Score
40/100
AIQ Edge Score
2/10

The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TSPY over ULTY, 48 versus 40 as of Oct 21, 2026. TSPY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum, while ULTY holds the stronger quality profile. TSPY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor TSPY today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. TSPY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.

Compare TappAlpha SPY Growth & Daily Income ETF and YieldMax Ultra Option Income Strategy ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.

TSPY vs ULTY: 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 wantTSPYULTYFits
Lower costExpense ratio0.71%1.4%TSPY
Broader diversificationNumber of holdings4101ULTY
Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield14.08%98.01%ULTY
Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year-12.9%-54.5%TSPY
Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year12.9%24.1%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.

Currently unavailable

Performance over time

Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.

TSPY
+38.9%
ULTY
+19.0%

Total return comparison

Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested

TSPY $13,892 · ULTY $11,904

Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.

Compare TSPY and ULTY against another ticker

Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.

Basic: 2 symbols·Explorer: 3 symbols·Pro and Premium: 5 symbols·Your limit: 2

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.

TSPY advantage
0
ULTY advantage
  • Risk Resilience86 vs 58
    TSPY +28
  • Momentum48 vs 24
    TSPY +24
  • Quality40 vs 50
    ULTY +10
  • Value38 vs 33
    TSPY +5

4 of 4 evidence groups favor TSPY. TSPY’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum; ULTY keeps a meaningful quality edge.

What changed since the last close

Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.

TSPY0 AIQ

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.

ULTY0 AIQ

No factor moved materially.

No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.

TSPY's lead was unchanged in the latest session.

Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TSPY and ULTY both carry a full feed there.

The central trade-off

TSPY (TappAlpha SPY Growth & Daily Income ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.

ULTY (YieldMax Ultra Option Income Strategy ETF): the counter-case, on quality — but at materially higher volatility, 21.7% against 9.3%.

Fund facts, side by side

Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.

MeasureTSPYULTYWhy it matters
Expense ratio0.71%1.4%Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold.
Holdings4101More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns.
Average volume245,465476,225Liquidity — matters most if you trade size.
Annualized volatility12.9%24.1%Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure.
Max drawdown (1Y)-12.9%-54.5%The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year.
Sharpe ratio-0.18-3.26Return per unit of risk. Higher is better.
Beta0.931.41Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio.

How much of the same holdings they own

TSPY and ULTY share 0% of their weighted exposure across 1 common holdings.

1 holding is unique to TSPY, and 27 holdings are unique to ULTY. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.

Largest shared positions

HoldingTSPYULTYShared
First American Government Obligations Fund 12/01/20310%2.76%0%

Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.

What TSPY adds that ULTY doesn’t

HoldingTSPYULTY
VOOVanguard S&P 500 ETF99.88%Not held

What ULTY adds that TSPY doesn’t

HoldingULTYTSPY
MELIMercadoLibre Inc4.94%Not held
AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc4.49%Not held
LITELumentum Holdings Inc4.42%Not held
FIXComfort Systems USA Inc4.4%Not held
LRCXLam Research Corp4.19%Not held
GOOGLAlphabet Inc3.96%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.

TSPY vs ULTY: five-year payout growth

TSPY began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. ULTY began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.

Dividend metricTSPYULTY
2025 annual payout$3.492$53.014
Peer ranknot rankednot 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

4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor TSPY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.

Evidence groupFavorsReading
AIQ ScoreTSPY48 vs 40
FundamentalsNot coveredNot covered
ValuationTSPYValue 38 vs 33
TechnicalsTSPYPrice vs 50-day 0% vs -8.6%; vs 200-day 0.6% vs -21.8%
Risk ResilienceTSPYRisk Resilience 86 vs 58
Analyst expectationsNot coveredNot covered

✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TSPY and ULTY and are excluded from the count.

AIQ Decision Stability

Competitive

The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.

  • The AIQ gap is moderate at 8 points.
  • 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
  • The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
  • 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 20

TSPY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.

Sep 6TSPY leads above the line · ULTY leads belowOct 20
Today
TSPY +8
48 vs 40
7 sessions ago
TSPY +7
47 vs 40
30 sessions ago
TSPY +6
49 vs 43
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.

TSPYConflicted

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%)
ULTYConflicted

1 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted

Only ULTY

  • Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
  • Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (17.48%)
  • Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
  • RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
  • 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
  • Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon

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.

TSPYNo material change

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).

ULTYNo material change

Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.51%, 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.

  1. 1ULTY closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSPY's edge.
  2. 2ULTY's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
  3. 3TSPY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
  4. 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

TSPY leads 6 of 6 windows
MetricTSPYULTY
1 week (5 sessions)-1.1%-5.8%
1 month (20 sessions)-1.5%-9.8%
3 months (63 sessions)-0.3%-13%
6 months (126 sessions)2.2%-25.7%
Year to date-0.7%-36.5%
1 year (252 sessions)1.4%-54.8%

Technicals

TSPY has the stronger structure
MetricTSPYULTY
RSI (14)49.129.5
ADX (14)13.633.9
Price vs 50-day0%-8.6%
Price vs 200-day0.6%-21.8%
Volatility (1M, annualized)9.3%21.7%

Risk

TSPY is the more resilient
MetricTSPYULTY
Beta0.931.41
Sharpe ratio-0.18-3.26
Sortino ratio-0.26-4.82
Max drawdown-12.9%-54.5%
Current drawdown-3.6%-54.2%
Annualized volatility12.9%24.1%
Value at risk (95%)-1.4%-3.1%

Straight answers

Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.

What is the difference between TSPY and ULTY?

ULTY holds 101 positions to TSPY's 4, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.

How much do TSPY and ULTY overlap?

TSPY and ULTY share 0% of their weighted exposure across 1 common holdings. 1 holding is unique to TSPY, and 27 holdings are unique to ULTY. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.

Which ETF is more diversified, TSPY or ULTY?

ULTY holds more positions: 101 versus 4 for TSPY.

Which has the lower expense ratio?

TSPY has the lower expense ratio, 0.71% a year against 1.4% for ULTY.

Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?

ULTY, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 98.01% against 14.08% for TSPY.

Which ETF has been more volatile?

ULTY has been more volatile over the past year, at 24.1% 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 -54.5% for ULTY.

Compare TSPY and ULTY 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.