Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 13, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

QQQI vs VYM: how they differ

Over the year VYM returned more, +17.6% against +16.9%, and VYM charges 0.04% against 0.68%.

NEOS Nasdaq-100(R) High Income ETF and Vanguard High Dividend Yield Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, QQQI and VYM hold 13% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions QQQI and VYM both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingQQQIVYM
Broadcom Inc2.82%8.07%
Cisco Systems Inc1.97%1.52%
Texas Instruments Inc1.19%1.07%
Analog Devices Inc0.85%0.82%
PepsiCo Inc0.81%0.91%
QUALCOMM Inc0.84%0.80%
Amgen Inc0.85%0.72%
Gilead Sciences Inc0.69%0.68%
Starbucks Corp0.51%0.50%
T-Mobile US Inc0.78%0.39%
Comcast Corp0.39%0.41%
Automatic Data Processing Inc0.40%0.36%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in QQQIOnly in VYM
NVIDIA Corp 7.66%JPMorgan Chase & Co 3.36%
Apple Inc 6.63%Exxon Mobil Corp 2.73%
Micron Technology Inc 5.61%Johnson & Johnson 2.31%
Microsoft Corp 4.38%Caterpillar Inc 1.73%
Advanced Micro Devices Inc 4.12%AbbVie Inc 1.57%
Amazon.com Inc 4.05%Chevron Corp 1.51%
Tesla Inc 3.35%Bank of America Corp 1.45%
Alphabet Inc 3.32%Procter & Gamble Co/The 1.45%

Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Apr 30, 2026 and Jun 30, 2026.

QQQI and VYM on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
QQQI
NEOS Nasdaq-100(R) High Income ETF
VYM
Vanguard High Dividend Yield Index Fund
Where it sitsIncome ETFCore index fund
IssuerNEOSVanguard
What it iscovered call, vs QQQUS high dividend
Total return, 1 year+16.9%+17.6%
S&P 500 over the same days+23.0%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−6.1 pts+0.1 pts
Cash paid, 1 year14.2%not an income fund
Expense ratio0.68%0.04%
Holdingsnot filed608

QQQI in plain words

Over the year to Sep 11, 2026, QQQI paid 14.2% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price rose 1.5%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +16.9%. Nasdaq-100 (QQQ) returned +23.0% over the same days, so a holder was behind by 6.1 pts. At its price on Sep 11, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 14.3%, paid monthly. NEOS estimates that 98% of the distribution paid Jun 18, 2026 was a return of capital (19a-1 notice, estimated, a tax characterization rather than a measure of erosion).

VYM in plain words

VYM is an index equity fund tracking the US high dividend. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.04% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 92% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 608 positions, with the top ten at 25.7%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, QQQI or VYM?
In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, QQQI returned +16.9% and VYM returned +17.6%, so VYM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, QQQI or VYM?
QQQI charges 0.68% a year and VYM charges 0.04%, so VYM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Are QQQI and VYM the same kind of fund?
No. QQQI is an option-income ETF and VYM is an index ETF, so they are built for different jobs. The table compares what both publish: return, cost and what each actually holds.

Other comparisons

Where to next

Where these figures came from

ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.

QQQI against VYM, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 13, 2026. Every figure is arithmetic on a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, QQQI against VYM, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/qqqi-vs-vym Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources