Get the weekly note
ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

Data as of .

CAIQ vs XDTE: which paid, and which earned it?

CAIQ and XDTE both write options for income.

Calamos Nasdaq Autocallable Income ETF and Roundhill S&P 500 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF.

13.7%CAIQ cash paid, 1 year
26.5%XDTE cash paid, 1 year
+16.7%CAIQ total return, 1 year
+15.6%XDTE total return, 1 year
CAIQ7 pts behind QQQ · since launch to Sep 18, 2026
QQQ+23.6%CAIQ+16.7%13.7% of it arrived as cash7 pts behind QQQTotal return, distributions reinvestedQQQ+23.6%CAIQ+16.7%13.7% cash7 pts behind QQQ
XDTE1 pt behind SPY · 1 year to Sep 18, 2026
SPY+16.6%XDTE+15.6%26.5% of it arrived as cash1 pt behind SPYTotal return, distributions reinvestedSPY+16.6%XDTE+15.6%26.5% cash1 pt behind SPY

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CAIQ and XDTE hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Only in each
Only in CAIQOnly in XDTE
Calamos Tax-Aware Collateral ETF 100.00%SPX 03/19/2027 678.8 C 66.30%
SPX 06/11/2027 678.8 C 24.62%
Roundhill Weekly T-Bill ETF 7.23%
First American Government Obligations Fund 12/01/2031 1.84%

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 Sep 18, 2026.

Performance, window by window

CAIQ and XDTE over each window. Every figure is an ETFIQ calculation with distributions reinvested. Source: ETFIQ.
WindowTotal returnCash paidAgainst the benchmark
CAIQXDTECAIQXDTECAIQXDTE
3 months−0.5%+2.5%4.3%5.1%+1.9 pts+0.3 pts
6 months+16.5%+14.9%9.5%10.6%−7.7 pts−3.1 pts
1 yearnot published+15.6%not published26.5%not published−1.0 pts
Since launch+16.7%+45.9%13.7%59.5%−7.0 pts−6.9 pts
Open the live comparison on ETFIQ
CAIQ and XDTE on the same fields, as of Sep 18, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CAIQ
Calamos Nasdaq Autocallable Income ETF
Option income on QQQ, paying monthly
XDTE
Roundhill S&P 500 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF
0DTE covered call on SPY, paying weekly
IssuerCalamosRoundhill
Strategyoption income0DTE covered call
BenchmarkNasdaq-100 (QQQ)S&P 500 (SPY)
Paysmonthlyweekly
Payout rate, annualized17.9%15.2%
Expense ratio0.74%0.97%
Cash paid, 1 year13.7% (since launch on Nov 20, 2025)26.5%
Price change, 1 year+2.1%−13.4%
Total return, 1 year+16.7% (since launch on Nov 20, 2025)+15.6%
Benchmark return, 1 year+23.6%+16.6%
Ahead or behind−7.0 pts−1.0 pts
Return of capital, latest estimatenot publishednot published
Age302 days925 days
Net assets$167m$336m

CAIQ in plain words

Over the period since launch on Nov 20, 2025 to Sep 18, 2026, CAIQ paid 13.7% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price rose 2.1%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +16.7%. Nasdaq-100 (QQQ) returned +23.6% over the same days, so a holder was behind by 7.0 pts. At its price on Sep 18, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 17.9%, paid monthly.

XDTE in plain words

Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, XDTE paid 26.5% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price fell 13.4%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +15.6%. S&P 500 (SPY) returned +16.6% over the same days, so a holder was behind by 1.0 pts. At its price on Sep 18, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 15.2%, paid weekly.

Questions people ask

Which is cheaper, CAIQ or XDTE?
CAIQ charges 0.74% a year and XDTE charges 0.97%, so CAIQ is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.

Other comparisons

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.

CAIQ against XDTE, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 18, 2026. Every figure is calculated from a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, CAIQ against XDTE, data as of Sep 18, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/income/caiq-vs-xdte Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

How every figure is computed · Standards and sources