QQQI vs. GPIQ

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

QQQI (NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF) and GPIQ (Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF) are both Nasdaq-100 funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, QQQI returned 17.94% vs 24.16% for GPIQ. Their 0.98 correlation means they have historically moved very closely together. QQQI charges 0.68%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for GPIQ.

Performance

QQQI vs. GPIQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF (QQQI) and Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF (GPIQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QQQI achieves a 6.90% return, which is significantly lower than GPIQ's 11.67% return.

QQQI

• 1D: 0.68%
• 1M: -3.08%
• 6M: 5.69%
• YTD: 6.90%
• 1Y: 17.94%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 18.07%

GPIQ

• 1D: 0.58%
• 1M: -2.85%
• 6M: 9.86%
• YTD: 11.67%
• 1Y: 24.16%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 26.11%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
GPIQ Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF	$86.57M	$81.60M	$83.20M
QQQI NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF	$341.25M	$334.46M	$358.36M

QQQI vs. GPIQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QQQI NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF	6.90%	18.62%	19.44%
GPIQ Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF	11.67%	19.77%	18.78%

Correlation

The correlation between QQQI and GPIQ is 0.99 - they have historically moved very closely together. At this level, their price movements offset little of one another.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	1.00
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 30, 2024	0.98

The correlation between QQQI and GPIQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.98 to 0.99 - a consistent structural relationship.

QQQI vs. GPIQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QQQI	GPIQ
Technology	59.9%	60.7%
Communication Services	12.1%	11.8%
Consumer Cyclical	10.0%	10.1%
Consumer Defensive	6.5%	6.4%
Industrials	4.3%	4.2%
Healthcare	3.7%	3.7%
Utilities	1.2%	1.4%
Basic Materials	1.1%	1.1%
Energy	0.5%	0.5%
Financial Services	0.2%	0.2%
Real Estate	0.1%	0.1%

Return for Risk

QQQI vs. GPIQ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

QQQI

QQQI Risk / Return Rank: 43
QQQI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
QQQI Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
QQQI Omega Ratio Rank: 39
QQQI Calmar Ratio Rank: 47
QQQI Martin Ratio Rank: 52

GPIQ

GPIQ Risk / Return Rank: 60
GPIQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
GPIQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
GPIQ Omega Ratio Rank: 55
GPIQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
GPIQ Martin Ratio Rank: 68

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

QQQI vs. GPIQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF (QQQI) and Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF (GPIQ). 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.

	QQQI	GPIQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.98	1.34	-0.35
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.42	1.87	-0.46
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.24	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.67	2.35	-0.67
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.03	8.33	-2.30

QQQI vs. GPIQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QQQI Sharpe Ratio is 0.98, which is comparable to the GPIQ Sharpe Ratio of 1.34. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QQQI and GPIQ, 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

QQQI vs. GPIQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QQQI drawdown since its inception was -20.00%, smaller than the maximum GPIQ drawdown of -21.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QQQI and GPIQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	QQQI	GPIQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.00%	-21.06%	+1.06%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.61%	-9.51%	-0.10%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.92%	-5.90%	-0.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.27%	-2.33%	+0.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.67%	2.68%	-0.01%

Volatility

QQQI vs. GPIQ - Volatility Comparison

NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF (QQQI) and Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF (GPIQ) have volatilities of 6.53% and 6.39%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QQQI	GPIQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.53%	6.39%	+0.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.66%	14.09%	-0.43%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.35%	16.69%	-0.34%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.75%	18.06%	-0.31%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.75%	18.06%	-0.31%

QQQI vs. GPIQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

QQQI has a 0.68% expense ratio, which is higher than GPIQ's 0.29% expense ratio.

Dividends

QQQI vs. GPIQ - Dividend Comparison

QQQI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 14.38%, more than GPIQ's 10.12% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
GPIQ Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF	9.32%	9.81%	9.18%	1.74%
QQQI NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF	14.38%	13.82%	12.85%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QQQI and GPIQ in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.99, QQQI and GPIQ move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, QQQI or GPIQ?

QQQI has higher volatility (6.53%) compared to GPIQ (6.39%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QQQI dropped -20.00% vs GPIQ's -21.06%.

Which ETF is better, QQQI or GPIQ?

On 1-year performance, GPIQ leads with 24.16% vs 17.94% for QQQI. On fees, GPIQ is cheaper at 0.29% per year. On volatility, GPIQ has been the lower-risk option at 6.39%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QQQI or GPIQ?

Over the 1-year period, GPIQ has performed better with a 24.16% return vs 17.94%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QQQI or GPIQ?

GPIQ is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for QQQI.

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

QQQI has the higher dividend yield at 14.38%, compared with 9.32% for GPIQ.

What is the main difference between QQQI and GPIQ?

They also come from different issuers: Neos and Goldman Sachs. Their fees differ too: 0.68% for QQQI and 0.29% for GPIQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GPIQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.34 vs 0.98), 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.