Which paid more, OARK or RYLD?

Over the year to Sep 4, 2026, OARK paid 39.3% of its starting price in cash and RYLD paid 12.4%, so OARK paid more. Cash paid is not the same as money made: the price change matters too.

Which returned more once distributions are counted, OARK or RYLD?

With every distribution reinvested, OARK returned +13.3% and RYLD returned +21.0% over the year to Sep 4, 2026, so RYLD returned more.

Which is cheaper, OARK or RYLD?

OARK charges 1.00% a year and RYLD charges 0.60%, so RYLD is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.

Data as of Sep 4, 2026. Every figure is the income desk's own, on published data.

OARK vs RYLD

Name: ETFIQ comparison of OARK and RYLD
Creator: ETFIQ

YieldMax(R) Innovation Option Income Strategy ETF and Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF, side by side on the income desk.

Open the live comparison on ETFIQ

OARK and RYLD on the income desk fields, as of Sep 4, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
	OARK YieldMax(R) Innovation Option Income Strategy ETF	RYLD Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call ETF
Issuer	YieldMax	Global X
Strategy	synthetic covered call	covered call
Benchmark	Nasdaq-100 (QQQ), used as the innovation proxy	Russell 2000 (IWM)
Pays	weekly	monthly
Payout rate, annualised	40.3%	12.2%
Expense ratio	1.00%	0.60%
Cash paid, 1 year	39.3%	12.4%
Price change, 1 year	−29.0%	+7.3%
Total return, 1 year	+13.3%	+21.0%
Benchmark return, 1 year	+25.6%	+26.4%
Ahead or behind	−12.3 pts	−5.4 pts
Return of capital, latest estimate	78%	100%
Age	1381 days	2692 days

OARK in plain words

Over the year to Sep 4, 2026, OARK paid 39.3% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price fell 29.0%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +13.3%. Nasdaq-100 (QQQ), used as the innovation proxy returned +25.6% over the same days, so a holder was behind by 12.3 pts. At its price on Sep 4, 2026 the latest distribution annualises to 40.3%, paid weekly. YieldMax estimates that 78% of the distribution paid Sep 4, 2026 was a return of capital (19a-1 notice, estimated, a tax characterisation rather than a measure of erosion).

RYLD in plain words

Over the year to Sep 4, 2026, RYLD paid 12.4% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price rose 7.3%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +21.0%. Russell 2000 (IWM) returned +26.4% over the same days, so a holder was behind by 5.4 pts. At its price on Sep 4, 2026 the latest distribution annualises to 12.2%, paid monthly. Global X estimates that 100% of the distribution paid Aug 27, 2026 was a return of capital (19a-1 notice, estimated, a tax characterisation rather than a measure of erosion).

Questions people ask

Which paid more, OARK or RYLD?: Over the year to Sep 4, 2026, OARK paid 39.3% of its starting price in cash and RYLD paid 12.4%, so OARK paid more. Cash paid is not the same as money made: the price change matters too.
Which returned more once distributions are counted, OARK or RYLD?: With every distribution reinvested, OARK returned +13.3% and RYLD returned +21.0% over the year to Sep 4, 2026, so RYLD returned more.
Which is cheaper, OARK or RYLD?: OARK charges 1.00% a year and RYLD charges 0.60%, so RYLD is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.

Other comparisons

Cite this page. ETFIQ, OARK against RYLD, data as of Sep 4, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/income/OARK-RYLD.html Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

ETFIQ is an independent publisher of exchange-traded fund data. It is not a fund issuer, broker-dealer or investment adviser, and it makes no recommendations; every figure here is stated arithmetic on published data. Standards and sources