QQQI vs QYLD: Which ETF Is Better in 2026?
A metric-by-metric comparison of NEOS NASDAQ-100(R) High Income ETF (QQQI) and Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD) — both Covered Call / Income funds — using ETFValuer's daily-updated rankings.
Educational content — not financial advice. Data as of July 25, 2026. ~5 minute read.
The Verdict
QQQI and QYLD compete directly — both are Covered Call / Income funds chasing the same job in a portfolio. That makes this a genuine either/or: the index each tracks, what it costs, and how it has handled drawdowns are what separate them, not the broad exposure they give you.
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — QYLD scores higher: 64.8 (Grade C) versus 55.1 for QQQI. That doesn't make QQQI a bad fund; it means QYLD currently edges it out on this specific mix of factors. Read the metric-by-metric breakdown below before deciding which matters more for your own portfolio.
Head-to-Head: Every Metric
| QQQI | QYLD | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Covered Call / Income | Covered Call / Income |
| Expense ratio | 0.68% | 0.60% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $13.1B | $8.4B |
| Dividend yield | 0.09% | 9.44% |
| 1-year return | +15.71% | +18.76% |
| 3-year return | n/a | +40.48% |
| Volatility | 15.84% | 10.89% |
| Max drawdown | -20.00% | -19.06% |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.68 | 1.26 |
| ETFValuer score | 55.1 | 64.8 |
| Grade | C | C |
| Overall rank | #323 | #174 |
Bold marks the better value in each row. "Better" is directional only (e.g. lower cost, higher return) — it isn't a recommendation by itself. See the full methodology.
Cost
QYLD is the cheaper fund, charging 0.60% a year versus 0.68% for QQQI — a gap of 0.08 percentage points (about $8.00/year on a $10,000 position) that compounds meaningfully over a multi-decade holding period. See the ETF Fee Calculator for the exact dollar impact at your investment size and horizon.
What QQQI's Fees Cost You
QQQI charges an expense ratio of 0.68% a year, deducted automatically from the fund's value. Small percentages compound into real money — adjust the figures below to see the impact on your own numbers.
Assumes a constant gross return and no additional contributions — a simplification, but it isolates exactly what the expense ratio costs. Try the full fee calculator to model contributions and compare any two funds.
Performance & Risk
Because at least one of these funds is too young for a 3-year record, the comparison rests on the 1-year window: QYLD returned +18.76% against +15.71% for QQQI. QYLD has the better risk-adjusted figure over that window (Sharpe 1.26 vs 0.68). A single year says very little about how either fund behaves across a full market cycle, so weight this far less heavily than you would a long record.
A Note on Comparing These Two
QQQI has only 2.5 years of trading history, against a full three-year record for QYLD. That makes several figures below not directly comparable: the 3-year return is unavailable, and the maximum drawdown covers a shorter — and possibly calmer — stretch of market history. A shallow drawdown on a young fund means it has not yet been tested, not that it held up well.
How Closely Do They Track Each Other?
Over the last 2.5 years of daily returns (622 shared trading days), QQQI and QYLD show a high correlation of 0.919 — closely related, but not identical. Holding both would add very little diversification: when one falls, the other almost always falls with it. Treat these as alternatives to each other, not as complements in the same portfolio.
| Measure | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Daily return correlation | 0.919 | High — closely related, but not identical |
| R-squared | 84.4% | 84.4% of QQQI's daily moves are explained by QYLD's |
| Tracking error (annualised) | 7.25% | Typical yearly spread between the two funds' returns |
| Annualised return over 2.5y | QQQI +18.23% · QYLD +12.86% | QQQI ahead by 5.36 points a year |
Correlation alone understates how far these can drift. Across every rolling 12-month window in the period, QQQI finished as much as +17.3 points ahead of QYLD at the best extreme and -2.9 points at the worst — a 20.2-point spread between the best and worst year of relative performance. Two funds can correlate tightly day to day and still deliver very different outcomes over any single year you happen to hold them.
Calculated from daily total returns over the trailing 3-year window, recomputed every day this site refreshes. Correlation of 1.00 means the two funds moved in lockstep; 0.00 means their daily moves were unrelated.
Holdings Overlap
QQQI and QYLD hold 9 of the same companies among their top 10 positions. Those shared names make up 46.7% of QQQI and 48.3% of QYLD. That's heavy duplication — owning both largely doubles down on the same companies rather than spreading risk. Most investors should pick one.
| Shared Holding | QQQI Weight | QYLD Weight |
|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA Corp | 8.64% | 8.85% |
| Apple Inc | 7.67% | 7.27% |
| Alphabet Inc | 6.58% | 7.88% |
| Microsoft Corp | 5.62% | 5.53% |
| Amazon.com Inc | 4.54% | 5.19% |
| Tesla Inc | 3.80% | 3.48% |
| Meta Platforms Inc | 3.42% | 3.29% |
| Walmart Inc | 3.42% | 3.25% |
| Broadcom Inc | 2.98% | 3.61% |
Compares the top 10 reported holdings from each fund's most recent SEC N-PORT-P filing, so it understates total overlap — funds tracking similar indexes overlap far more deeply than the top 10 alone can show. Search any company across all tracked funds with the Stock Overlap tool.
Which One Should You Pick?
Lean QQQI if…
- You prefer to keep holdings under one roof at Neos Funds
Lean QYLD if…
- You want the lower running cost — 0.60% vs 0.68%, about $8 a year less on a $10,000 position
- Current income matters to you — it yields 9.44% against 0.09%
- It has been the calmer ride (10.9% volatility vs 15.8%) with a shallower worst-case fall (-19.1% vs -20.0%)
- You care about return per unit of risk — its Sharpe ratio of 1.26 beats 0.68
Whichever you pick, holding both at full weight is usually the wrong answer — see the overlap and correlation sections above.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is QQQI or QYLD better?
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — QYLD scores higher: 64.8 (Grade C) versus 55.1 for QQQI. That doesn't make QQQI a bad fund; it means QYLD currently edges it out on this specific mix of factors. Read the metric-by-metric breakdown below before deciding which matters more for your own portfolio.
Which has the lower expense ratio, QQQI or QYLD?
QYLD currently has the lower expense ratio (0.60% vs. 0.68%).
Can I hold both QQQI and QYLD?
You can, though the benefit is limited. At a correlation of 0.92, QQQI and QYLD fall together far more often than not, so owning both adds complexity and a second expense ratio without much real diversification. Most investors are better served picking one.
Go deeper on either fund
Full daily-updated metrics, holdings context, and category peers.