QQQI vs TLTW: Which ETF Is Better in 2026?
A metric-by-metric comparison of NEOS NASDAQ-100(R) High Income ETF (QQQI) and iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond Buywrite Strategy ETF (TLTW) — 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 TLTW 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 — QQQI scores higher: 55.1 (Grade C) versus 50.0 for TLTW. That doesn't make TLTW a bad fund; it means QQQI 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 | TLTW | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Covered Call / Income | Covered Call / Income |
| Expense ratio | 0.68% | 0.35% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $13.1B | $1.9B |
| Dividend yield | 0.09% | 9.86% |
| 1-year return | +15.71% | +5.99% |
| 3-year return | n/a | +0.39% |
| Volatility | 15.84% | 7.56% |
| Max drawdown | -20.00% | -16.11% |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.68 | 0.13 |
| ETFValuer score | 55.1 | 50.0 |
| Grade | C | C |
| Overall rank | #323 | #379 |
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
TLTW is the cheaper fund, charging 0.35% a year versus 0.68% for QQQI — a gap of 0.33 percentage points (about $33.00/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: QQQI returned +15.71% against +5.99% for TLTW. QQQI has the better risk-adjusted figure over that window (Sharpe 0.68 vs 0.13). 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 TLTW. 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 TLTW show a very low correlation of 0.112 — essentially unrelated. These funds move largely on their own schedules. Combining them is a real diversification decision rather than a redundant one, which is the case where owning both can genuinely reduce portfolio volatility.
| Measure | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Daily return correlation | 0.112 | Very low — essentially unrelated |
| R-squared | 1.3% | 1.3% of QQQI's daily moves are explained by TLTW's |
| Tracking error (annualised) | 19.01% | Typical yearly spread between the two funds' returns |
| Annualised return over 2.5y | QQQI +18.23% · TLTW +4.12% | QQQI ahead by 14.11 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 +31.1 points ahead of TLTW at the best extreme and -9.2 points at the worst — a 40.3-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 TLTW share no companies among their top 10 reported holdings. That points to genuinely different exposure, so holding both is more likely to diversify than to duplicate. Full portfolios may still overlap further down the list.
Based on the top 10 holdings in each fund's most recent SEC N-PORT-P filing.
Which One Should You Pick?
Lean QQQI if…
- You care about return per unit of risk — its Sharpe ratio of 0.68 beats 0.13
- You want the deeper, more liquid market ($13B in assets vs $2B) and the tighter spread (0.019% vs 0.139%)
Lean TLTW if…
- You want the lower running cost — 0.35% vs 0.68%, about $33 a year less on a $10,000 position
- Current income matters to you — it yields 9.86% against 0.09%
- It has been the calmer ride (7.6% volatility vs 15.8%) with a shallower worst-case fall (-16.1% vs -20.0%)
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 TLTW better?
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — QQQI scores higher: 55.1 (Grade C) versus 50.0 for TLTW. That doesn't make TLTW a bad fund; it means QQQI 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 TLTW?
TLTW currently has the lower expense ratio (0.35% vs. 0.68%).
Can I hold both QQQI and TLTW?
Yes, and it may be worth doing. QQQI and TLTW correlate at only 0.11 over the past 2.5 years, so they behave differently enough that holding both is a genuine diversification decision rather than a redundant one. Size each to the role you want it to play.
Go deeper on either fund
Full daily-updated metrics, holdings context, and category peers.