Data as of .
IVVW vs QDTE: which paid, and which earned it?
Over the year QDTE paid 36.1% of its price in cash against IVVW’s 17.5%, and returned more with it reinvested.
ETFIQ Return Stability Score: IVVW 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, IVVW and QDTE hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Only in IVVW | Only in QDTE |
|---|---|
| ISHARES CORE S&P ETF TRUST 101.45% | NDX 03/19/2027 2510.15 C 25.90% |
| USD CASH 0.18% | QQQ 11/19/2027 70.11 C 24.77% |
| OCT26 SPX C @ 7625.000000 -1.63% | NDX 06/11/2027 3059.42 C 22.64% |
| QQQ 09/17/2027 70.69 C 17.82% | |
| Roundhill Weekly T-Bill ETF 4.97% | |
| First American Government Obligations Fund 12/01/2031 3.90% |
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 18, 2026.
Performance, window by window
| Window | Total return | Cash paid | Against the benchmark | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IVVW | QDTE | IVVW | QDTE | IVVW | QDTE | |
| 3 months | +4.6% | −0.9% | 2.6% | 7.6% | +2.4 pts | +1.6 pts |
| 6 months | +13.1% | +19.7% | 7.9% | 16.2% | −4.9 pts | −4.5 pts |
| 1 year | +17.2% | +21.1% | 17.5% | 36.1% | +0.6 pts | −0.7 pts |
| Since launch | +38.9% | +59.9% | 39.7% | 74.1% | −14.9 pts | −4.3 pts |
| IVVW iShares S&P 500 BuyWrite ETF Covered call on SPY, paying monthly | QDTE Roundhill Innovation-100 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF 0DTE covered call on QQQ, paying weekly | |
|---|---|---|
| Issuer | iShares | Roundhill |
| Strategy | covered call | 0DTE covered call |
| Benchmark | S&P 500 (SPY) | Nasdaq-100 (QQQ) |
| Pays | monthly | weekly |
| Payout rate, annualized | 7.6% | 20.8% |
| Expense ratio | 0.25% | 0.96% |
| Cash paid, 1 year | 17.5% | 36.1% |
| Price change, 1 year | −2.0% | −19.2% |
| Total return, 1 year | +17.2% | +21.1% |
| Benchmark return, 1 year | +16.6% | +21.8% |
| Ahead or behind | +0.6 pts | −0.7 pts |
| Return of capital, latest estimate | not published | not published |
| Age | 917 days | 925 days |
| Net assets | $350m | $967m |
IVVW in plain words
Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, IVVW paid 17.5% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price fell 2.0%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +17.2%. S&P 500 (SPY) returned +16.6% 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 7.6%, paid monthly.
QDTE in plain words
Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, QDTE paid 36.1% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price fell 19.2%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +21.1%. Nasdaq-100 (QQQ) returned +21.8% over the same days, so a holder was behind by 0.7 pts. At its price on Sep 18, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 20.8%, paid weekly.
Questions people ask
- Which paid more, IVVW or QDTE?
- Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, IVVW paid 17.5% of its starting price in cash and QDTE paid 36.1%, so QDTE paid more. Cash paid is not the same as money made: the price change matters too.
- Which returned more once distributions are counted, IVVW or QDTE?
- With every distribution reinvested, IVVW returned +17.2% and QDTE returned +21.1% over the year to Sep 18, 2026, so QDTE returned more.
- Which is cheaper, IVVW or QDTE?
- IVVW charges 0.25% a year and QDTE charges 0.96%, so IVVW 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, IVVW against QDTE, data as of Sep 18, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/income/ivvw-vs-qdte Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.