NFLW vs. QQA

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

NFLW (Roundhill NFLX WeeklyPay ETF) and QQA (Invesco QQQ Income Advantage ETF) are both Derivative Income funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, NFLW returned -50.09% vs 28.19% for QQA. At a 0.22 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. NFLW charges 0.99%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for QQA.

Performance

NFLW vs. QQA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Roundhill NFLX WeeklyPay ETF (NFLW) 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, NFLW achieves a -27.54% return, which is significantly lower than QQA's 12.34% return.

NFLW

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: -21.07%
• YTD: -27.54%
• 6M: -27.44%
• 1Y: -50.09%
• 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)

NFLW vs. QQA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
NFLW Roundhill NFLX WeeklyPay ETF	-27.54%	-29.54%
QQA Invesco QQQ Income Advantage ETF	12.34%	14.91%

Correlation

The correlation between NFLW and QQA is 0.22, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.22
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 18, 2025	0.22

NFLW vs. QQA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NFLW	QQA
Communication Services	28.3%	14.3%
Basic Materials	-	1.0%
Consumer Cyclical	-	11.4%
Consumer Defensive	-	6.4%
Energy	-	0.5%
Financial Services	-	0.2%
Healthcare	-	3.7%
Industrials	-	2.6%
Real Estate	-	0.1%
Technology	-	58.7%
Utilities	-	1.2%

Return for Risk

NFLW vs. QQA — Risk / Return Rank

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

NFLW

NFLW Risk / Return Rank: 1
NFLW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 0
NFLW Sortino Ratio Rank: 1
NFLW Omega Ratio Rank: 0
NFLW Calmar Ratio Rank: 1
NFLW Martin Ratio Rank: 1

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.

NFLW vs. QQA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Roundhill NFLX WeeklyPay ETF (NFLW) 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.

	NFLW	QQA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-1.24	2.03	-3.28
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.99	2.74	-4.72
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.75	1.37	-0.62
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.93	3.23	-4.17
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.59	13.90	-15.49

NFLW vs. QQA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NFLW Sharpe Ratio is -1.24, which is lower than the QQA Sharpe Ratio of 2.03. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NFLW and QQA, 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

NFLW vs. QQA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NFLW drawdown since its inception was -53.89%, which is greater than QQA's maximum drawdown of -19.73%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NFLW and QQA.

Drawdown Indicators

	NFLW	QQA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-53.89%	-19.73%	-34.16%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-53.89%	-8.76%	-45.13%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-53.85%	-2.14%	-51.71%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-27.86%	-2.53%	-25.33%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	31.61%	2.03%	+29.58%

Volatility

NFLW vs. QQA - Volatility Comparison

Roundhill NFLX WeeklyPay ETF (NFLW) has a higher volatility of 9.81% compared to Invesco QQQ Income Advantage ETF (QQA) at 6.67%. This indicates that NFLW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QQA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NFLW	QQA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.81%	6.67%	+3.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	30.49%	11.28%	+19.21%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	40.43%	13.95%	+26.48%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	40.29%	18.59%	+21.70%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	40.29%	18.59%	+21.70%

NFLW vs. QQA - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

NFLW vs. QQA - Dividend Comparison

NFLW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 87.68%, more than QQA's 9.70% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
NFLW Roundhill NFLX WeeklyPay ETF	87.68%	38.89%	0.00%
QQA Invesco QQQ Income Advantage ETF	9.70%	9.78%	4.29%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NFLW and QQA in my portfolio?

NFLW and QQA have a correlation of 0.22, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NFLW or QQA?

NFLW has higher volatility (9.81%) compared to QQA (6.67%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NFLW dropped -53.89% vs QQA's -19.73%.

Which ETF is better, NFLW or QQA?

On 1-year performance, QQA leads with 28.19% vs -50.09% for NFLW. On fees, QQA is cheaper at 0.29% per year. On volatility, QQA has been the lower-risk option at 6.67%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NFLW or QQA?

Over the 1-year period, QQA has performed better with a 28.19% return vs -50.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NFLW or QQA?

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

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

NFLW has the higher dividend yield at 87.68%, compared with 9.70% for QQA.

What is the main difference between NFLW and QQA?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QQA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.03 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.