WNTR vs YMAG: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
WNTR and YMAG are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. WNTR is YieldMax MSTR Short Option Income Strategy ETF, while YMAG is YieldMax Magnificent 7 Fund of Option Income ETF. WNTR is broader by holdings count, with 18 positions versus 9 for YMAG. WNTR has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has YMAG ahead on AIQ Score, 50 versus 33.
| Metric | WNTR | YMAG |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 1% | 1.34% |
| Holdings | 18 | 9 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 157.59% | 46.98% |
| Average volume | 168,695 | 1,099,245 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -49.1% | -25.7% |
| YTD return | -60.4% | -21.6% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 60.6% | 18.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -67.3% | -31.4% |
| Beta | -2.10 | 1.16 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.84 | -1.75 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.09 | -2.51 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 33/100 | 50/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 1/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 44/100 | 38/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 3/100 | 76/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
YieldMax MSTR Short Option Income Strategy ETF vs YieldMax Magnificent 7 Fund of Option Income ETF
YMAG leads
YMAG leads by 17 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 34 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 3 of 3 evidence groups support YMAG, and its lead is narrowing.
YieldMax MSTR Short Option Income Strategy ETF
YieldMax Magnificent 7 Fund of Option Income ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors YMAG over WNTR, 50 versus 33 as of Oct 21, 2026. YMAG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while WNTR holds the stronger momentum profile. YMAG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor YMAG today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. YMAG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 34 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
Compare YieldMax MSTR Short Option Income Strategy ETF and YieldMax Magnificent 7 Fund of Option Income ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
WNTR vs YMAG: 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 | WNTR | YMAG | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 1% | 1.34% | WNTR |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 18 | 9 | WNTR |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 157.59% | 46.98% | WNTR |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -67.3% | -31.4% | YMAG |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 60.6% | 18.8% | YMAG |
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 WNTR and YMAG 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 Resilience3 vs 76YMAG +73
- Quality38 vs 48YMAG +10
- Momentum44 vs 38WNTR +6
3 of 3 evidence groups favor YMAG. YMAG’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; WNTR 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 -6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 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 3 active signals are unchanged.
YMAG's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — WNTR and YMAG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
YMAG (YieldMax Magnificent 7 Fund of Option Income ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
WNTR (YieldMax MSTR Short Option Income Strategy ETF): the counter-case, on momentum — but at materially higher volatility, 45.5% against 16.2%.
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 | WNTR | YMAG | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 1% | 1.34% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 18 | 9 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 168,695 | 1,099,245 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 60.6% | 18.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -67.3% | -31.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.84 | -1.75 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | -2.10 | 1.16 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
WNTR vs YMAG: five-year payout growth
WNTR began paying distributions in 2025, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. YMAG began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | WNTR | YMAG |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $23.226 | $7.438 |
| 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 YMAG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | YMAG | 33 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | YMAG | Price vs 50-day -20% vs -0.9%; vs 200-day -41.9% vs -8.8% |
| Risk Resilience | YMAG | Risk Resilience 3 vs 76 |
| 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 WNTR and YMAG 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 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 lead has swung materially session to session. (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 YMAG.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20YMAG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 34 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- YMAG +17
- 33 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- YMAG +17
- 32 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- YMAG +34
- 25 vs 59
- 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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only WNTR
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.18%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 3 bearish
Only YMAG
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, Downtrend Structure Active.
WNTR 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 down over the latest session (price -6.81%, AIQ -2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.36%, 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.
- 1WNTR closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 73 points behind, the largest single contributor to YMAG's edge.
- 2WNTR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3YMAG starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 17 points over 30 sessions, and a further 17-point move would eliminate YMAG'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
YMAG leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | WNTR | YMAG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.7% | -3.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 6.6% | -3.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -40.6% | -2.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -36.7% | -13.4% |
| Year to date | -60.4% | -21.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -49.1% | -25.7% |
Technicals
YMAG has the stronger structure| Metric | WNTR | YMAG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 51.3 | 45.7 |
| ADX (14) | 41.2 | 15.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -20% | -0.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -41.9% | -8.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 45.5% | 16.2% |
Risk
YMAG is the more resilient| Metric | WNTR | YMAG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -2.1 | 1.16 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.84 | -1.75 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.09 | -2.51 |
| Max drawdown | -67.3% | -31.4% |
| Current drawdown | -64.8% | -28.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 60.6% | 18.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.3% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF is more diversified, WNTR or YMAG?
WNTR holds more positions: 18 versus 9 for YMAG.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
WNTR has the lower expense ratio, 1% a year against 1.34% for YMAG.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
WNTR, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 157.59% against 46.98% for YMAG.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
WNTR has been more volatile over the past year, at 60.6% annualized against 18.8% for YMAG.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
YMAG fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -31.4% against -67.3% for WNTR.
Compare WNTR and YMAG 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.