QDTY vs. LFGY

Last updated Jul 21, 2026

QDTY (YieldMax Nasdaq 100 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF) and LFGY (YieldMax Crypto Industry & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QDTY is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by YieldMax, while LFGY is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by YieldMax. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, QDTY returned 22.30% vs -9.94% for LFGY. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QDTY charges 1.01%/yr vs 1.02%/yr for LFGY.

Performance

QDTY vs. LFGY - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in YieldMax Nasdaq 100 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF (QDTY) and YieldMax Crypto Industry & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF (LFGY). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QDTY achieves a 9.62% return, which is significantly higher than LFGY's 8.72% return.

QDTY

• 1D: 0.15%
• 1M: -4.80%
• 6M: 8.04%
• YTD: 9.62%
• 1Y: 22.30%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 15.59%

LFGY

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

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

QDTY vs. LFGY - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
QDTY YieldMax Nasdaq 100 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF	9.62%	12.21%
LFGY YieldMax Crypto Industry & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF	8.72%	-6.83%

Correlation

The correlation between QDTY and LFGY is 0.64, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.64
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 13, 2025	0.67

The correlation between QDTY and LFGY has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.67 - a consistent structural relationship.

QDTY vs. LFGY - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QDTY	LFGY
Technology	60.8%	34.1%
Communication Services	13.0%	6.7%
Consumer Cyclical	10.7%	4.0%
Consumer Defensive	6.2%	-
Healthcare	3.6%	-
Industrials	2.9%	-
Utilities	1.1%	-
Basic Materials	1.0%	-
Energy	0.5%	-
Financial Services	0.2%	55.3%
Real Estate	0.1%	-

Return for Risk

QDTY vs. LFGY — Risk / Return Rank

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

QDTY

QDTY Risk / Return Rank: 49
QDTY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
QDTY Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
QDTY Omega Ratio Rank: 45
QDTY Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
QDTY Martin Ratio Rank: 53

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

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.

QDTY vs. LFGY - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for YieldMax Nasdaq 100 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF (QDTY) and YieldMax Crypto Industry & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF (LFGY). 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.

	QDTY	LFGY	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.26	-0.25	+1.51
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.73	-0.09	+1.83
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	0.99	+0.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.02	-0.28	+2.30
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.73	-0.58	+7.31

QDTY vs. LFGY - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QDTY Sharpe Ratio is 1.26, which is higher than the LFGY Sharpe Ratio of -0.25. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QDTY and LFGY, 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

QDTY vs. LFGY - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QDTY drawdown since its inception was -23.45%, smaller than the maximum LFGY drawdown of -35.94%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QDTY and LFGY.

Drawdown Indicators

	QDTY	LFGY	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.45%	-35.94%	+12.49%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.10%	-35.94%	+24.84%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.80%	-16.95%	+11.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.40%	-14.06%	+9.66%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.32%	17.19%	-13.87%

Volatility

QDTY vs. LFGY - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for YieldMax Nasdaq 100 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF (QDTY) is 7.23%, while YieldMax Crypto Industry & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF (LFGY) has a volatility of 11.39%. This indicates that QDTY experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LFGY based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QDTY	LFGY	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.23%	11.39%	-4.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.82%	32.38%	-17.56%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.86%	39.55%	-21.69%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.05%	42.27%	-16.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.05%	42.27%	-16.22%

QDTY vs. LFGY - Expense Ratio Comparison

QDTY has a 1.01% expense ratio, which is lower than LFGY's 1.02% expense ratio.

Dividends

QDTY vs. LFGY - Dividend Comparison

QDTY's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 34.62%, less than LFGY's 85.09% yield.

Position	TTM	2025
LFGY YieldMax Crypto Industry & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF	85.09%	94.90%
QDTY YieldMax Nasdaq 100 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF	34.62%	26.82%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QDTY and LFGY in my portfolio?

QDTY and LFGY have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QDTY or LFGY?

LFGY has higher volatility (11.39%) compared to QDTY (7.23%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QDTY dropped -23.45% vs LFGY's -35.94%.

Which ETF is better, QDTY or LFGY?

On 1-year performance, QDTY leads with 22.30% vs -9.94% for LFGY. On fees, QDTY is cheaper at 1.01% per year. On volatility, QDTY has been the lower-risk option at 7.23%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QDTY or LFGY?

Over the 1-year period, QDTY has performed better with a 22.30% return vs -9.94%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QDTY or LFGY?

QDTY is cheaper with a 1.01% expense ratio, compared with 1.02% for LFGY.

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

LFGY has the higher dividend yield at 85.09%, compared with 34.62% for QDTY.

What is the main difference between QDTY and LFGY?

QDTY is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while LFGY is Derivative Income. Their fees differ too: 1.01% for QDTY and 1.02% for LFGY.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QDTY currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.26 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.