LFGY vs. AAPW

Last updated Jul 21, 2026

LFGY (YieldMax Crypto Industry & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF) and AAPW (AAPL WeeklyPay™ ETF) are both Derivative Income funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, LFGY returned -9.94% vs 61.94% for AAPW. At a 0.29 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LFGY charges 1.02%/yr vs 0.99%/yr for AAPW.

Performance

LFGY vs. AAPW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in YieldMax Crypto Industry & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF (LFGY) and AAPL WeeklyPay™ ETF (AAPW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LFGY achieves a 8.72% return, which is significantly lower than AAPW's 21.74% return.

LFGY

• 1D: 3.97%
• 1M: -9.03%
• 6M: -2.03%
• YTD: 8.72%
• 1Y: -9.94%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -0.96%

AAPW

• 1D: -2.91%
• 1M: 11.04%
• 6M: 31.34%
• YTD: 21.74%
• 1Y: 61.94%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 21.94%

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

LFGY vs. AAPW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
LFGY YieldMax Crypto Industry & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF	8.72%	-7.28%
AAPW AAPL WeeklyPay™ ETF	21.74%	8.71%

Correlation

The correlation between LFGY and AAPW is 0.20, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.20
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 19, 2025	0.29

LFGY vs. AAPW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LFGY	AAPW
Financial Services	55.3%	-
Technology	34.1%	13.0%
Communication Services	6.7%	-
Consumer Cyclical	4.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

LFGY vs. AAPW — Risk / Return Rank

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

LFGY

LFGY Risk / Return Rank: 8
LFGY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7
LFGY Sortino Ratio Rank: 8
LFGY Omega Ratio Rank: 8
LFGY Calmar Ratio Rank: 7
LFGY Martin Ratio Rank: 7

AAPW

AAPW Risk / Return Rank: 80
AAPW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
AAPW Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
AAPW Omega Ratio Rank: 82
AAPW Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
AAPW Martin Ratio Rank: 65

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.

LFGY vs. AAPW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for YieldMax Crypto Industry & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF (LFGY) and AAPL WeeklyPay™ ETF (AAPW). 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.

	LFGY	AAPW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.25	2.09	-2.34
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.09	2.81	-2.91
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.99	1.36	-0.38
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.28	3.59	-3.86
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.58	8.55	-9.13

LFGY vs. AAPW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LFGY Sharpe Ratio is -0.25, which is lower than the AAPW Sharpe Ratio of 2.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LFGY and AAPW, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

LFGY vs. AAPW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LFGY drawdown since its inception was -35.94%, roughly equal to the maximum AAPW drawdown of -36.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFGY and AAPW.

Drawdown Indicators

	LFGY	AAPW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.94%	-36.28%	+0.34%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-35.94%	-17.36%	-18.58%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-16.95%	-2.91%	-14.04%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-14.06%	-10.64%	-3.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	17.19%	7.27%	+9.92%

Volatility

LFGY vs. AAPW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for YieldMax Crypto Industry & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF (LFGY) is 11.39%, while AAPL WeeklyPay™ ETF (AAPW) has a volatility of 12.17%. This indicates that LFGY experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than AAPW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LFGY	AAPW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.39%	12.17%	-0.78%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	32.38%	23.14%	+9.24%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	39.55%	29.86%	+9.69%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	42.27%	35.02%	+7.25%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	42.27%	35.02%	+7.25%

LFGY vs. AAPW - Expense Ratio Comparison

LFGY has a 1.02% expense ratio, which is higher than AAPW's 0.99% expense ratio.

Dividends

LFGY vs. AAPW - Dividend Comparison

LFGY's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 85.09%, more than AAPW's 29.42% yield.

Position	TTM	2025
AAPW AAPL WeeklyPay™ ETF	29.42%	28.83%
LFGY YieldMax Crypto Industry & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF	85.09%	94.90%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LFGY and AAPW in my portfolio?

LFGY and AAPW have a correlation of 0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LFGY or AAPW?

AAPW has higher volatility (12.17%) compared to LFGY (11.39%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LFGY dropped -35.94% vs AAPW's -36.28%.

Which ETF is better, LFGY or AAPW?

On 1-year performance, AAPW leads with 61.94% vs -9.94% for LFGY. On fees, AAPW is cheaper at 0.99% per year. On volatility, LFGY has been the lower-risk option at 11.39%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LFGY or AAPW?

Over the 1-year period, AAPW has performed better with a 61.94% return vs -9.94%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LFGY or AAPW?

AAPW is cheaper with a 0.99% expense ratio, compared with 1.02% for LFGY.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LFGY or AAPW?

LFGY has the higher dividend yield at 85.09%, compared with 29.42% for AAPW.

What is the main difference between LFGY and AAPW?

They also come from different issuers: YieldMax and Roundhill. Their fees differ too: 1.02% for LFGY and 0.99% for AAPW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

AAPW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.09 vs -0.25), 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.