Get the weekly note
ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

Data as of .

LQDM vs TSYW: which paid, and which earned it?

LQDM and TSYW both write options for income.

Amplify LQD Investment Grade 12% Target Income ETF and Roundhill Treasury Bond WeeklyPay ETF.

3.9%LQDM cash paid, 1 year
9.6%TSYW cash paid, 1 year
−2.0%LQDM total return, 1 year
−9.8%TSYW total return, 1 year
LQDM0.6 pts ahead of LQD · since launch to Sep 18, 2026
LQD−2.6%LQDM−2.0%0.6 pts ahead of LQDTotal return, distributions reinvestedLQD−2.6%LQDM−2.0%0.6 pts ahead of LQD
TSYW4.2 pts behind TLT · since launch to Sep 18, 2026
TLT−5.6%TSYW−9.8%4.2 pts behind TLTTotal return, distributions reinvestedTLT−5.6%TSYW−9.8%4.2 pts behind TLT

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, LQDM and TSYW hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Only in each
Only in LQDMOnly in TSYW
iShares iBoxx USD Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF 100.13%TREASURY BILL 100.00%
Invesco Government & Agency Portfolio 12/31/2031 0.02%
Cash & Other -0.01%
LQD 09/25/2026 104.7 C -0.14%

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 21, 2026.

Performance, window by window

LQDM and TSYW over each window. Every figure is an ETFIQ calculation with distributions reinvested. Source: ETFIQ.
WindowTotal returnCash paidAgainst the benchmark
LQDMTSYWLQDMTSYWLQDMTSYW
3 months−2.0%−7.1%3.0%2.8%+0.8 pts−1.9 pts
6 monthsnot published−5.7%not published6.1%not published−2.5 pts
Since launch−2.0%−9.8%3.9%9.6%+0.6 pts−4.2 pts
Open the live comparison on ETFIQ
LQDM and TSYW on the same fields, as of Sep 18, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
LQDM
Amplify LQD Investment Grade 12% Target Income ETF
Option income on LQD, paying monthly
TSYW
Roundhill Treasury Bond WeeklyPay ETF
Option income on TLT, paying weekly
IssuerAmplifyRoundhill
Strategyoption incomeoption income
BenchmarkUS investment grade bonds (LQD)20+ Year Treasury (TLT)
Paysmonthlyweekly
Payout rate, annualized12.3%12.4%
Expense ratio0.54%0.99%
Cash paid, 1 year3.9% (since launch on Apr 21, 2026)9.6% (since launch on Nov 13, 2025)
Price change, 1 year−5.8%−18.8%
Total return, 1 year−2.0% (since launch on Apr 21, 2026)−9.8% (since launch on Nov 13, 2025)
Benchmark return, 1 year−2.6%−5.6%
Ahead or behind+0.6 pts−4.2 pts
Return of capital, latest estimatenot publishednot published
Age150 days309 days
Net assets$3m$3m

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.

TSYW in plain words

Over the period since launch on Nov 13, 2025 to Sep 18, 2026, TSYW paid 9.6% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price fell 18.8%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned −9.8%. 20+ Year Treasury (TLT) returned −5.6% over the same days, so a holder was behind by 4.2 pts. At its price on Sep 18, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 12.4%, paid weekly.

Questions people ask

Which is cheaper, LQDM or TSYW?
LQDM charges 0.54% a year and TSYW charges 0.99%, so LQDM 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.

LQDM against TSYW, 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, LQDM against TSYW, data as of Sep 18, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/income/lqdm-vs-tsyw Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

How every figure is computed · Standards and sources