Get the weekly note
ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

Data as of .

FBYY vs METW: which paid, and which earned it?

FBYY and METW both write options for income.

GraniteShares YieldBOOST META ETF and Roundhill META WeeklyPay ETF.

25.6%FBYY cash paid, 1 year
25.4%METW cash paid, 1 year
−36.0%FBYY total return, 1 year
−21.5%METW total return, 1 year
FBYY27.1 pts behind META · since launch to Sep 18, 2026
META−9.0%FBYY−36.0%27.1 pts behind METATotal return, distributions reinvestedMETA−9.0%FBYY−36.0%27.1 pts behind META
METW7.1 pts behind META · 1 year to Sep 18, 2026
META−14.4%METW−21.5%7.1 pts behind METATotal return, distributions reinvestedMETA−14.4%METW−21.5%7.1 pts behind META

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, FBYY and METW hold 50% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions FBYY and METW both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingFBYYMETW
Treasury Bill50.24%76.97%
Only in each
Only in FBYYOnly in METW
Treasury Bill 49.76%Meta Platforms Inc 23.03%

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.

Performance, window by window

FBYY and METW over each window. Every figure is an ETFIQ calculation with distributions reinvested. Source: ETFIQ.
WindowTotal returnCash paidAgainst the benchmark
FBYYMETWFBYYMETWFBYYMETW
3 months−6.1%+16.6%6.8%9.9%−21.5 pts+1.2 pts
6 months−11.0%+11.1%15.7%17.2%−23.2 pts−1.1 pts
1 yearnot published−21.5%not published25.4%not published−7.1 pts
Since launch−36.0%−11.0%25.6%37.2%−27.1 pts−7.0 pts
Open the live comparison on ETFIQ
FBYY and METW on the same fields, as of Sep 18, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
FBYY
GraniteShares YieldBOOST META ETF
Synthetic covered call on META, paying weekly
METW
Roundhill META WeeklyPay ETF
Option income on META, paying weekly
IssuerGraniteSharesRoundhill
Strategysynthetic covered calloption income
Benchmark(META)(META)
Paysweeklyweekly
Payout rate, annualized29.7%50.2%
Expense ratio1.07%1.00%
Cash paid, 1 year25.6% (since launch on Oct 21, 2025)25.4%
Price change, 1 year−56.9%−46.9%
Total return, 1 year−36.0% (since launch on Oct 21, 2025)−21.5%
Benchmark return, 1 year−9.0%−14.4%
Ahead or behind−27.1 pts−7.1 pts
Return of capital, latest estimate92%not published
Age332 days457 days
Net assets$215,841$27m

FBYY in plain words

Over the period since launch on Oct 21, 2025 to Sep 18, 2026, FBYY paid 25.6% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price fell 56.9%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned −36.0%. (META) returned −9.0% over the same days, so a holder was behind by 27.1 pts. At its price on Sep 18, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 29.7%, paid weekly. GraniteShares estimates that 92% of the distribution paid Aug 25, 2026 was a return of capital (19a-1 notice, estimated, a tax characterization rather than a measure of erosion).

METW in plain words

Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, METW paid 25.4% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price fell 46.9%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned −21.5%. (META) returned −14.4% over the same days, so a holder was behind by 7.1 pts. At its price on Sep 18, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 50.2%, paid weekly.

Questions people ask

Which is cheaper, FBYY or METW?
FBYY charges 1.07% a year and METW charges 1.00%, so METW 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.

FBYY against METW, 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, FBYY against METW, data as of Sep 18, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/income/fbyy-vs-metw Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

How every figure is computed · Standards and sources