BABW vs. QQA

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BABW (Roundhill BABA WeeklyPay ETF) and QQA (Invesco QQQ Income Advantage ETF) are both Derivative Income funds. Both are actively managed. At a 0.43 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BABW charges 0.99%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for QQA.

Performance

BABW vs. QQA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Roundhill BABA WeeklyPay ETF (BABW) and Invesco QQQ Income Advantage ETF (QQA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BABW achieves a -35.65% return, which is significantly lower than QQA's 12.34% return.

BABW

• 1D: -2.19%
• 1M: -23.91%
• YTD: -35.65%
• 6M: -37.94%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QQA

• 1D: -1.80%
• 1M: 0.69%
• YTD: 12.34%
• 6M: 11.54%
• 1Y: 28.19%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

BABW vs. QQA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BABW Roundhill BABA WeeklyPay ETF	-35.65%	-16.98%
QQA Invesco QQQ Income Advantage ETF	12.34%	2.40%

Correlation

The correlation between BABW and QQA is 0.43, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 23, 2025	0.43

Return for Risk

BABW vs. QQA — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

BABW

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

QQA

QQA Risk / Return Rank: 67
QQA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
QQA Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
QQA Omega Ratio Rank: 64
QQA Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
QQA Martin Ratio Rank: 76

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

BABW vs. QQA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Roundhill BABA WeeklyPay ETF (BABW) and Invesco QQQ Income Advantage ETF (QQA). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	BABW	QQA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	2.03	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	2.74	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.37	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	3.23	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	13.90	—

Drawdowns

BABW vs. QQA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BABW drawdown since its inception was -50.11%, which is greater than QQA's maximum drawdown of -19.73%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BABW and QQA.

Drawdown Indicators

	BABW	QQA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-50.11%	-19.73%	-30.38%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-8.76%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-50.11%	-2.14%	-47.97%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-23.69%	-2.53%	-21.16%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	2.03%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	BABW	QQA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	6.67%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	11.28%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	48.53%	13.95%	+34.58%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	48.53%	18.59%	+29.94%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	48.53%	18.59%	+29.94%

BABW vs. QQA - Expense Ratio Comparison

BABW has a 0.99% expense ratio, which is higher than QQA's 0.29% expense ratio.

Dividends

BABW vs. QQA - Dividend Comparison

BABW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 51.67%, more than QQA's 9.70% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
BABW Roundhill BABA WeeklyPay ETF	51.67%	10.68%	0.00%
QQA Invesco QQQ Income Advantage ETF	9.70%	9.78%	4.29%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BABW and QQA in my portfolio?

BABW and QQA have a correlation of 0.43, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, BABW or QQA?

On fees, QQA is cheaper at 0.29% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, BABW or QQA?

QQA is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for BABW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BABW or QQA?

BABW has the higher dividend yield at 51.67%, compared with 9.70% for QQA.

What is the main difference between BABW and QQA?

They also come from different issuers: Roundhill Investments and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.99% for BABW and 0.29% for QQA.