Data as of .
DUBS vs XDTE: which paid, and which earned it?
Over the year XDTE paid 26.5% of its price in cash against DUBS’s 2.3%, though DUBS returned more with it reinvested.
ETFIQ Return Stability Score: DUBS 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, DUBS and XDTE hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Only in DUBS | Only in XDTE |
|---|---|
| State Street SPDR Portfolio S& 74.61% | SPX 03/19/2027 678.8 C 66.30% |
| BNY Mellon US Large Cap Core E 25.28% | SPX 06/11/2027 678.8 C 24.62% |
| TREASURY BILL 0.11% | 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
| Window | Total return | Cash paid | Against the benchmark | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DUBS | XDTE | DUBS | XDTE | DUBS | XDTE | |
| 3 months | +3.2% | +2.5% | 0.5% | 5.1% | +1.0 pts | +0.3 pts |
| 6 months | +20.3% | +14.9% | 1.2% | 10.6% | +2.3 pts | −3.1 pts |
| 1 year | +20.3% | +15.6% | 2.3% | 26.5% | +3.7 pts | −1.0 pts |
| 3 years | +80.1% | not published | 9.1% | not published | +1.7 pts | not published |
| Since launch | +84.4% | +45.9% | 9.3% | 59.5% | +2.4 pts | −6.9 pts |
| DUBS Aptus Large Cap Enhanced Yield ETF Option income on SPY, paying quarterly | XDTE Roundhill S&P 500 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF 0DTE covered call on SPY, paying weekly | |
|---|---|---|
| Issuer | Aptus | Roundhill |
| Strategy | option income | 0DTE covered call |
| Benchmark | S&P 500 (SPY) | S&P 500 (SPY) |
| Pays | quarterly | weekly |
| Payout rate, annualized | 2.1% | 15.2% |
| Expense ratio | 0.40% | 0.97% |
| Cash paid, 1 year | 2.3% | 26.5% |
| Price change, 1 year | +17.6% | −13.4% |
| Total return, 1 year | +20.3% | +15.6% |
| Benchmark return, 1 year | +16.6% | +16.6% |
| Ahead or behind | +3.7 pts | −1.0 pts |
| Return of capital, latest estimate | not published | not published |
| Age | 1192 days | 925 days |
| Net assets | $353m | $336m |
DUBS in plain words
Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, DUBS paid 2.3% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price rose 17.6%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +20.3%. S&P 500 (SPY) returned +16.6% over the same days, so a holder was ahead by 3.7 pts. At its price on Sep 18, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 2.1%, paid quarterly.
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 paid more, DUBS or XDTE?
- Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, DUBS paid 2.3% of its starting price in cash and XDTE paid 26.5%, so XDTE paid more. Cash paid is not the same as money made: the price change matters too.
- Which returned more once distributions are counted, DUBS or XDTE?
- With every distribution reinvested, DUBS returned +20.3% and XDTE returned +15.6% over the year to Sep 18, 2026, so DUBS returned more.
- Which is cheaper, DUBS or XDTE?
- DUBS charges 0.40% a year and XDTE charges 0.97%, so DUBS 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, DUBS against XDTE, data as of Sep 18, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/income/dubs-vs-xdte Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.