Data as of .
CSHI vs LQTI: which paid, and which earned it?
Over the year LQTI paid 8.5% of its price in cash against CSHI’s 5.2%, though CSHI returned more with it reinvested.
ETFIQ Return Stability Score: CSHI scores higher
Was the payout funded by returns, or by your own capital?
A percentile among the 173 income ETFs writing on an index or proxy. It is a position in a set, not a rating, and neither end of it is a recommendation. All income ETFs ranked by it · How it is computed
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, CSHI and LQTI hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Only in CSHI | Only in LQTI |
|---|---|
| United States Treasury Bill 8.17% | 2026-10-30 iShares iBoxx $ Investment Gr 98.40% |
| United States Treasury Bill 8.07% | US Dollar 0.83% |
| United States Treasury Bill 8.03% | U.S. Treasury Bill, 0%, due 09/29/2026 0.43% |
| United States Treasury Bill 7.98% | U.S. Treasury Bill, 0%, due 10/29/2026 0.43% |
| United States Treasury Bill 7.94% | 2026-09-25 iShares iBoxx $ Investment Gr -0.09% |
| United States Treasury Bill 7.87% | |
| United States Treasury Bill 7.76% | |
| United States Treasury Bill 7.71% |
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 Jun 30, 2026 and Sep 18, 2026.
Performance, window by window
| Window | Total return | Cash paid | Against the benchmark | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CSHI | LQTI | CSHI | LQTI | CSHI | LQTI | |
| 3 months | +1.1% | −2.5% | 1.2% | 2.2% | +0.2 pts | +0.4 pts |
| 6 months | +2.5% | −0.2% | 2.4% | 4.4% | +0.8 pts | +0.3 pts |
| 1 year | +5.0% | −1.4% | 5.2% | 8.5% | +1.3 pts | +0.6 pts |
| 3 years | +16.8% | not published | 16.4% | not published | +2.7 pts | not published |
| Since launch | +23.8% | +4.7% | 22.0% | 13.4% | +4.6 pts | +0.1 pts |
| CSHI NEOS Enhanced Income 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF Covered call on BIL, paying monthly | LQTI FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF Option income on LQD, paying monthly | |
|---|---|---|
| Issuer | NEOS | First Trust |
| Strategy | covered call | option income |
| Benchmark | 1-3 month T-bills (BIL) | US investment grade bonds (LQD), used as the proxy |
| Pays | monthly | monthly |
| Payout rate, annualized | 5.0% | 9.2% |
| Expense ratio | 0.38% | 0.65% |
| Cash paid, 1 year | 5.2% | 8.5% |
| Price change, 1 year | −0.4% | −9.7% |
| Total return, 1 year | +5.0% | −1.4% |
| Benchmark return, 1 year | +3.7% | −2.0% |
| Ahead or behind | +1.3 pts | +0.6 pts |
| Return of capital, latest estimate | 41% | not published |
| Age | 1480 days | 582 days |
| Net assets | $1.9bn | $242m |
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).
LQTI in plain words
Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, LQTI paid 8.5% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price fell 9.7%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned −1.4%. US investment grade bonds (LQD), used as the proxy returned −2.0% 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 9.2%, paid monthly.
Questions people ask
- Which paid more, CSHI or LQTI?
- Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, CSHI paid 5.2% of its starting price in cash and LQTI paid 8.5%, so LQTI paid more. Cash paid is not the same as money made: the price change matters too.
- Which returned more once distributions are counted, CSHI or LQTI?
- With every distribution reinvested, CSHI returned +5.0% and LQTI returned −1.4% over the year to Sep 18, 2026, so CSHI returned more.
- Which is cheaper, CSHI or LQTI?
- CSHI charges 0.38% a year and LQTI charges 0.65%, 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 LQTI, data as of Sep 18, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/income/cshi-vs-lqti Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.