NFLW vs. PEPS
NFLW (Roundhill NFLX WeeklyPay ETF) and PEPS (Parametric Equity Plus ETF) are both Derivative Income funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, NFLW returned -50.09% vs 26.19% for PEPS. At a 0.21 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. NFLW charges 0.99%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for PEPS.
Performance
NFLW vs. PEPS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, NFLW achieves a -27.54% return, which is significantly lower than PEPS's 7.86% return.
NFLW
- 1D
- 0.08%
- 1M
- -21.07%
- YTD
- -27.54%
- 6M
- -27.44%
- 1Y
- -50.09%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
PEPS
- 1D
- -1.38%
- 1M
- -0.55%
- YTD
- 7.86%
- 6M
- 7.03%
- 1Y
- 26.19%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
NFLW vs. PEPS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
NFLW Roundhill NFLX WeeklyPay ETF | -27.54% | -29.54% |
PEPS Parametric Equity Plus ETF | 7.86% | 18.00% |
Correlation
The correlation between NFLW and PEPS is 0.21, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.21 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 18, 2025 | 0.21 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
NFLW vs. PEPS — Risk / Return Rank
NFLW
PEPS
NFLW vs. PEPS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Roundhill NFLX WeeklyPay ETF (NFLW) and Parametric Equity Plus ETF (PEPS). 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.
| NFLW | PEPS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -3.16 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -4.51 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.75 | 1.35 | -0.60 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.93 | 2.69 | -3.62 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.59 | 12.10 | -13.68 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
NFLW vs. PEPS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum NFLW drawdown since its inception was -53.89%, which is greater than PEPS's maximum drawdown of -21.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NFLW and PEPS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| NFLW | PEPS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -53.89% | -21.26% | -32.63% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -53.89% | -9.80% | -44.09% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -53.85% | -3.04% | -50.81% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -27.86% | -2.75% | -25.11% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 31.61% | 2.17% | +29.44% |
Volatility
NFLW vs. PEPS - Volatility Comparison
Roundhill NFLX WeeklyPay ETF (NFLW) has a higher volatility of 9.81% compared to Parametric Equity Plus ETF (PEPS) at 5.38%. This indicates that NFLW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PEPS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| NFLW | PEPS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 9.81% | 5.38% | +4.43% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 30.49% | 10.82% | +19.67% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 40.43% | 13.80% | +26.63% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 40.29% | 18.43% | +21.86% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 40.29% | 18.43% | +21.86% |
NFLW vs. PEPS - Expense Ratio Comparison
NFLW has a 0.99% expense ratio, which is higher than PEPS's 0.10% expense ratio.
Dividends
NFLW vs. PEPS - Dividend Comparison
NFLW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 87.68%, more than PEPS's 0.95% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|
NFLW Roundhill NFLX WeeklyPay ETF | 87.68% | 38.89% | 0.00% |
PEPS Parametric Equity Plus ETF | 0.95% | 1.00% | 0.17% |
Frequently Asked Questions
NFLW and PEPS have a correlation of 0.21, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
NFLW has higher volatility (9.81%) compared to PEPS (5.38%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NFLW dropped -53.89% vs PEPS's -21.26%.
On 1-year performance, PEPS leads with 26.19% vs -50.09% for NFLW. On fees, PEPS is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, PEPS has been the lower-risk option at 5.38%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, PEPS has performed better with a 26.19% return vs -50.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
PEPS is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for NFLW.
NFLW has the higher dividend yield at 87.68%, compared with 0.95% for PEPS.
They also come from different issuers: Roundhill and Parametric. Their fees differ too: 0.99% for NFLW and 0.10% for PEPS.
PEPS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.91 vs -1.24), 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.
Find the right allocation for NFLW and PEPS
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer