Data as of .
LQTI vs TLTI: which paid, and which earned it?
Over the year LQTI paid 8.5% of its price in cash against TLTI’s 6.4%, and returned more with it reinvested.
ETFIQ Return Stability Score: TLTI 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, LQTI and TLTI hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Only in LQTI | Only in TLTI |
|---|---|
| 2026-10-30 iShares iBoxx $ Investment Gr 98.40% | United States Treasury Note/Bond 100.00% |
| US Dollar 0.83% | |
| U.S. Treasury Bill, 0%, due 09/29/2026 0.43% | |
| U.S. Treasury Bill, 0%, due 10/29/2026 0.43% | |
| 2026-09-25 iShares iBoxx $ Investment Gr -0.09% |
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 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LQTI | TLTI | LQTI | TLTI | LQTI | TLTI | |
| 3 months | −2.5% | −4.7% | 2.2% | 1.5% | +0.4 pts | +0.5 pts |
| 6 months | −0.2% | −2.0% | 4.4% | 3.0% | +0.3 pts | +1.1 pts |
| 1 year | −1.4% | −2.9% | 8.5% | 6.4% | +0.6 pts | +1.9 pts |
| Since launch | +4.7% | −2.9% | 13.4% | 10.6% | +0.1 pts | +1.8 pts |
| LQTI FT Vest Investment Grade & Target Income ETF Option income on LQD, paying monthly | TLTI NEOS Enhanced Income 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF Covered call on TLT, paying monthly | |
|---|---|---|
| Issuer | First Trust | NEOS |
| Strategy | option income | covered call |
| Benchmark | US investment grade bonds (LQD), used as the proxy | 20+ Year Treasury (TLT) |
| Pays | monthly | monthly |
| Payout rate, annualized | 9.2% | 6.3% |
| Expense ratio | 0.65% | not published |
| Cash paid, 1 year | 8.5% | 6.4% |
| Price change, 1 year | −9.7% | −9.1% |
| Total return, 1 year | −1.4% | −2.9% |
| Benchmark return, 1 year | −2.0% | −4.7% |
| Ahead or behind | +0.6 pts | +1.9 pts |
| Return of capital, latest estimate | not published | 35% |
| Age | 582 days | 646 days |
| Net assets | $242m | $17m |
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.
TLTI in plain words
Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, TLTI paid 6.4% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price fell 9.1%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned −2.9%. 20+ Year Treasury (TLT) returned −4.7% over the same days, so a holder was ahead by 1.9 pts. At its price on Sep 18, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 6.3%, paid monthly. NEOS estimates that 35% 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).
Questions people ask
- Which paid more, LQTI or TLTI?
- Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, LQTI paid 8.5% of its starting price in cash and TLTI paid 6.4%, 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, LQTI or TLTI?
- With every distribution reinvested, LQTI returned −1.4% and TLTI returned −2.9% over the year to Sep 18, 2026, so LQTI returned more.
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, LQTI against TLTI, data as of Sep 18, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/income/lqti-vs-tlti Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.