IVVW vs. QQQI

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IVVW (iShares S&P 500 BuyWrite ETF) and QQQI (NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IVVW is a Derivative Income fund tracking the Cboe S&P 500 Enhanced 1% OTM BuyWrite Index, while QQQI is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by Neos. IVVW is passively managed, while QQQI is actively managed. Over the past year, IVVW returned 20.07% vs 30.41% for QQQI. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IVVW charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.68%/yr for QQQI.

Performance

IVVW vs. QQQI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares S&P 500 BuyWrite ETF (IVVW) and NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF (QQQI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IVVW achieves a 4.84% return, which is significantly lower than QQQI's 13.43% return.

IVVW

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: 1.90%
• YTD: 4.84%
• 6M: 6.58%
• 1Y: 20.07%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QQQI

• 1D: -0.17%
• 1M: 6.91%
• YTD: 13.43%
• 6M: 12.92%
• 1Y: 30.41%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IVVW vs. QQQI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IVVW iShares S&P 500 BuyWrite ETF	4.84%	11.71%	12.90%
QQQI NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF	13.43%	18.62%	17.09%

Correlation

The correlation between IVVW and QQQI is 0.85, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 18, 2024	0.86

The correlation between IVVW and QQQI has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

IVVW vs. QQQI - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IVVW	QQQI
Technology	35.6%	53.3%
Financial Services	11.8%	0.3%
Communication Services	11.2%	15.7%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	12.1%
Healthcare	8.5%	4.3%
Industrials	8.3%	3.3%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	7.7%
Energy	3.5%	0.7%
Utilities	2.4%	1.5%
Real Estate	1.9%	0.1%
Basic Materials	1.8%	1.2%

Return for Risk

IVVW vs. QQQI — Risk / Return Rank

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

IVVW

IVVW Risk / Return Rank: 82
IVVW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
IVVW Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
IVVW Omega Ratio Rank: 91
IVVW Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
IVVW Martin Ratio Rank: 87

QQQI

QQQI Risk / Return Rank: 68
QQQI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
QQQI Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
QQQI Omega Ratio Rank: 70
QQQI Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
QQQI Martin Ratio Rank: 74

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.

IVVW vs. QQQI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares S&P 500 BuyWrite ETF (IVVW) and NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF (QQQI). 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.

	IVVW	QQQI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.73	2.35	+0.37
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.77	3.12	+0.65
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.61	1.43	+0.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.47	3.18	+0.29
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	19.13	14.27	+4.85
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IVVW vs. QQQI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IVVW Sharpe Ratio is 2.73, which is comparable to the QQQI Sharpe Ratio of 2.35. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IVVW and QQQI, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	IVVW	QQQI	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.73	2.35	+0.37
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.07	1.34	-0.27

Drawdowns

IVVW vs. QQQI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IVVW drawdown since its inception was -16.79%, smaller than the maximum QQQI drawdown of -20.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IVVW and QQQI.

Drawdown Indicators

	IVVW	QQQI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.79%	-20.00%	+3.21%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.81%	-9.61%	+3.80%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.09%	-0.17%	+0.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.75%	-2.20%	+0.45%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.05%	2.14%	-1.09%

Volatility

IVVW vs. QQQI - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares S&P 500 BuyWrite ETF (IVVW) is 1.13%, while NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF (QQQI) has a volatility of 2.68%. This indicates that IVVW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QQQI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IVVW	QQQI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.13%	2.68%	-1.55%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.07%	9.85%	-3.78%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.40%	12.98%	-5.58%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.66%	17.07%	-4.41%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.66%	17.07%	-4.41%

IVVW vs. QQQI - Expense Ratio Comparison

IVVW has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than QQQI's 0.68% expense ratio.

Dividends

IVVW vs. QQQI - Dividend Comparison

IVVW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 19.70%, more than QQQI's 13.19% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
IVVW iShares S&P 500 BuyWrite ETF	19.70%	18.55%	13.72%
QQQI NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF	13.19%	13.82%	12.85%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IVVW and QQQI in my portfolio?

IVVW and QQQI have a correlation of 0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IVVW or QQQI?

QQQI has higher volatility (2.68%) compared to IVVW (1.13%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IVVW dropped -16.79% vs QQQI's -20.00%.

Which ETF is better, IVVW or QQQI?

On 1-year performance, QQQI leads with 30.41% vs 20.07% for IVVW. On fees, IVVW is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, IVVW has been the lower-risk option at 1.13%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IVVW or QQQI?

Over the 1-year period, QQQI has performed better with a 30.41% return vs 20.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IVVW or QQQI?

IVVW is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for QQQI.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IVVW or QQQI?

IVVW has the higher dividend yield at 19.70%, compared with 13.19% for QQQI.

What is the main difference between IVVW and QQQI?

IVVW is categorized as Derivative Income, while QQQI is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Neos. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for IVVW and 0.68% for QQQI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IVVW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.73 vs 2.35), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.