XDTE vs XPAY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
XDTE and XPAY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. XDTE is Roundhill Investments - S&P 500 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF, while XPAY is Roundhill Investments - S&P 500 Target 20 Managed Distribution ETF. XPAY is broader by holdings count, with 15 positions versus 4 for XDTE. XPAY has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has XDTE ahead on AIQ Score, 44 versus 41.
What is the main difference between XDTE and XPAY?
XPAY holds 15 positions to XDTE's 4, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | XDTE | XPAY |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.97% | 0.49% |
| Holdings | 4 | 15 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 30.24% | 21.47% |
| Average volume | 156,181 | 48,660 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -14.1% | -7.2% |
| YTD return | -5.2% | -5.8% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 13.8% | 14.2% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -19.6% | -15.5% |
| Beta | 0.94 | 0.99 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.30 | -0.71 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.54 | -0.92 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 44/100 | 41/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 3/10 | 2/10 |
| Momentum | 27/100 | 26/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 85/100 | 83/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Roundhill Investments - S&P 500 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF vs Roundhill Investments - S&P 500 Target 20 Managed Distribution ETF
XDTE leads
XDTE leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality.
Fragile: 0 of 4 evidence groups support XDTE.
Roundhill Investments - S&P 500 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF
Roundhill Investments - S&P 500 Target 20 Managed Distribution ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XDTE over XPAY, 44 versus 41 as of Oct 24, 2026. XDTE's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality. XDTE also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 0 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XDTE today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. XDTE lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Roundhill Investments - S&P 500 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF and Roundhill Investments - S&P 500 Target 20 Managed Distribution ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
XDTE vs XPAY: 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 | XDTE | XPAY | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.97% | 0.49% | XPAY |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 4 | 15 | XPAY |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 30.24% | 21.47% | XDTE |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -19.6% | -15.5% | XPAY |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 13.8% | 14.2% | Similar |
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 XDTE and XPAY 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.
- Quality41 vs 35XDTE +6
- Risk Resilience85 vs 83Even
- Value39 vs 40Even
- Momentum27 vs 26Even
0 of 4 evidence groups favor XDTE. XDTE’s edge is concentrated in quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-23, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-22.
Largest factor move: Momentum -5, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
XDTE's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — XDTE and XPAY 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 | XDTE | XPAY | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.97% | 0.49% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 4 | 15 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 156,181 | 48,660 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 13.8% | 14.2% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -19.6% | -15.5% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.30 | -0.71 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.94 | 0.99 | 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.
How much of the same holdings they own
XDTE and XPAY share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
3 holdings are unique to XDTE, and 14 holdings are unique to XPAY. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
What XDTE adds that XPAY doesn’t
| Holding | XDTE | XPAY |
|---|---|---|
| 4SPX 270319C00678800SPX 03/19/2027 678.8 C | 66.25% | Not held |
| 4SPX 270611C00678800SPX 06/11/2027 678.8 C | 24.61% | Not held |
| WEEKRoundhill Weekly T-Bill ETF | 7.22% | Not held |
What XPAY adds that XDTE doesn’t
| Holding | XPAY | XDTE |
|---|---|---|
| 4SPY 270212C00033470SPY 02/12/2027 33.47 C | 14.11% | Not held |
| 4SPY 270716C00036700SPY 07/16/2027 36.7 C | 12.1% | Not held |
| 4SPY 270312C00033670SPY 03/12/2027 33.67 C | 11.82% | Not held |
| 4SPY 270416C00033870SPY 04/16/2027 33.87 C | 11.79% | Not held |
| 4SPY 270611C00037110SPY 06/11/2027 37.11 C | 10.34% | Not held |
| 4SPY 270115C00033210SPY 01/15/2027 33.21 C | 7.14% | 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.
XDTE vs XPAY: five-year payout growth
XDTE began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. XPAY began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | XDTE | XPAY |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $15.536 | $11.434 |
| 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
0 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XDTE. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 44 vs 41 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 39 vs 40 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -2.4% vs -3%; vs 200-day -3.2% vs -3.4% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 85 vs 83 |
| 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 XDTE and XPAY and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (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 XDTE.
How the comparison changed
48 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 23XDTE lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- XDTE +3
- 44 vs 41
- 7 sessions ago
- XDTE +3
- 46 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- XDTE +1
- 48 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Oct 14 when XDTE moved ahead of XPAY.
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.
XDTE and XPAY carry the same 6 signals, so the signals do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Death Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, Keltner Channel Breakdown, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
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 -0.34%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.49%, AIQ -1 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.
- 1XPAY closes the Quality gap — currently 6 points behind, the largest single contributor to XDTE's edge.
- 2XPAY's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3XDTE 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
XDTE leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | XDTE | XPAY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.6% | -0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.4% | -3.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.8% | -2.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.6% | -3.7% |
| Year to date | -5.2% | -5.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -14.1% | -7.2% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | XDTE | XPAY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 32.3 | 31.5 |
| ADX (14) | 24.1 | 21.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.4% | -3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -3.2% | -3.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 10% | 14.6% |
Risk
Split| Metric | XDTE | XPAY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.94 | 0.99 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.3 | -0.71 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.54 | -0.92 |
| Max drawdown | -19.6% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -16% | -9.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 13.8% | 14.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.5% | -1.6% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between XDTE and XPAY?
XPAY holds 15 positions to XDTE's 4, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do XDTE and XPAY overlap?
XDTE and XPAY share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 3 holdings are unique to XDTE, and 14 holdings are unique to XPAY. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, XDTE or XPAY?
XPAY holds more positions: 15 versus 4 for XDTE.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
XPAY has the lower expense ratio, 0.49% a year against 0.97% for XDTE.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
XDTE, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 30.24% against 21.47% for XPAY.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 13.8% annualized for XDTE and 14.2% for XPAY.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
XPAY fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -15.5% against -19.6% for XDTE.
Compare XDTE and XPAY 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.