Data as of .
CSHI vs LQDM: which paid, and which earned it?
CSHI and LQDM both write options for income.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, CSHI and LQDM hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Only in CSHI | Only in LQDM |
|---|---|
| United States Treasury Bill 12/10/2026 7.59% | iShares iBoxx USD Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF 100.13% |
| United States Treasury Bill 12/03/2026 7.45% | Invesco Government & Agency Portfolio 12/31/2031 0.02% |
| United States Treasury Bill 12/08/2026 7.45% | Cash & Other -0.01% |
| United States Treasury Bill 11/24/2026 7.28% | LQD 09/25/2026 104.7 C -0.14% |
| United States Treasury Bill 11/19/2026 7.27% | |
| United States Treasury Bill 10/01/2026 7.24% | |
| United States Treasury Bill 11/12/2026 7.16% | |
| United States Treasury Bill 09/24/2026 7.11% |
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 Sep 21, 2026.
Performance, window by window
| Window | Total return | Cash paid | Against the benchmark | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CSHI | LQDM | CSHI | LQDM | CSHI | LQDM | |
| 3 months | +1.1% | −2.0% | 1.2% | 3.0% | +0.2 pts | +0.8 pts |
| 6 months | +2.5% | not published | 2.4% | not published | +0.8 pts | not published |
| 1 year | +5.0% | not published | 5.2% | not published | +1.3 pts | not published |
| 3 years | +16.8% | not published | 16.4% | not published | +2.7 pts | not published |
| Since launch | +23.8% | −2.0% | 22.0% | 3.9% | +4.6 pts | +0.6 pts |
| CSHI NEOS Enhanced Income 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF Covered call on BIL, paying monthly | LQDM Amplify LQD Investment Grade 12% Target Income ETF Option income on LQD, paying monthly | |
|---|---|---|
| Issuer | NEOS | Amplify |
| Strategy | covered call | option income |
| Benchmark | 1-3 month T-bills (BIL) | US investment grade bonds (LQD) |
| Pays | monthly | monthly |
| Payout rate, annualized | 5.0% | 12.3% |
| Expense ratio | 0.38% | 0.54% |
| Cash paid, 1 year | 5.2% | 3.9% (since launch on Apr 21, 2026) |
| Price change, 1 year | −0.4% | −5.8% |
| Total return, 1 year | +5.0% | −2.0% (since launch on Apr 21, 2026) |
| Benchmark return, 1 year | +3.7% | −2.6% |
| Ahead or behind | +1.3 pts | +0.6 pts |
| Return of capital, latest estimate | 41% | not published |
| Age | 1480 days | 150 days |
| Net assets | $1.9bn | $3m |
CSHI in plain words
Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, CSHI paid 5.2% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price fell 0.4%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +5.0%. 1-3 month T-bills (BIL) returned +3.7% over the same days, so a holder was ahead by 1.3 pts. At its price on Sep 18, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 5.0%, paid monthly. NEOS estimates that 41% of the distribution paid Sep 11, 2026 was a return of capital (19a-1 notice, estimated, a tax characterization rather than a measure of erosion).
LQDM in plain words
Over the period since launch on Apr 21, 2026 to Sep 18, 2026, LQDM paid 3.9% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price fell 5.8%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned −2.0%. US investment grade bonds (LQD) returned −2.6% over the same days, so a holder was ahead by 0.6 pts. At its price on Sep 18, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 12.3%, paid monthly.
Questions people ask
- Which is cheaper, CSHI or LQDM?
- CSHI charges 0.38% a year and LQDM charges 0.54%, so CSHI 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, CSHI against LQDM, data as of Sep 18, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/income/cshi-vs-lqdm Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.