Get the weekly note
ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

Data as of .

MAGY vs QLDY: which paid, and which earned it?

Over the year QLDY paid 29.2% of its price in cash against MAGY’s 26.5%, and returned more with it reinvested.

Roundhill Magnificent Seven Covered Call ETF and Defiance Nasdaq 100 LightningSpread(TM) Income ETF.

26.5%MAGY cash paid, 1 year
29.2%QLDY cash paid, 1 year
+1.8%MAGY total return, 1 year
+10.6%QLDY total return, 1 year

ETFIQ Return Stability Score: MAGY scores higher

Was the payout funded by returns, or by your own capital?

MAGY 22.6QLDY 19.13.8, the lowest in this set96.8, the highest

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

MAGY9.4 pts behind MAGS · 1 year to Sep 18, 2026
MAGS+11.2%MAGY+1.8%9.4 pts behind MAGSTotal return, distributions reinvestedMAGS+11.2%MAGY+1.8%9.4 pts behind MAGS
QLDY11.2 pts behind QQQ · 1 year to Sep 18, 2026
QQQ+21.8%QLDY+10.6%29.2% of it arrived as cash11.2 pts behind QQQTotal return, distributions reinvestedQQQ+21.8%QLDY+10.6%11.2 pts behind QQQ

What they hold in common

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

Positions MAGY and QLDY both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingMAGYQLDY
First American Government Obligations Fu0.36%4.77%
Only in each
Only in MAGYOnly in QLDY
Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF 100.02%Ndx 12/18/2026 2001.44 C 94.80%
MAGS 09/25/2026 71.37 C -0.38%United States Treasury Note/bond 2.375% 0.53%
Ndxp Us 09/21/26 P29500 0.08%
Xnd 12/18/2026 10.44 C 0.05%
Cash & Other -0.06%
Nasdaq-1 Put Opt 09/26 29650 -0.16%

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 and Sep 21, 2026.

Performance, window by window

MAGY and QLDY over each window. Every figure is an ETFIQ calculation with distributions reinvested. Source: ETFIQ.
WindowTotal returnCash paidAgainst the benchmark
MAGYQLDYMAGYQLDYMAGYQLDY
3 months+3.7%−6.6%6.1%8.3%−3.9 pts−4.1 pts
6 months+8.1%+20.1%12.9%18.7%−12.7 pts−4.2 pts
1 year+1.8%+10.6%26.5%29.2%−9.4 pts−11.2 pts
Since launch+25.6%+10.6%42.0%29.2%−37.5 pts−11.2 pts
Open the live comparison on ETFIQ
MAGY and QLDY on the same fields, as of Sep 18, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
MAGY
Roundhill Magnificent Seven Covered Call ETF
Covered call on MAGS, paying weekly
QLDY
Defiance Nasdaq 100 LightningSpread(TM) Income ETF
Option income on QQQ, paying weekly
IssuerRoundhillDefiance
Strategycovered calloption income
BenchmarkMagnificent Seven (MAGS)Nasdaq-100 (QQQ)
Paysweeklyweekly
Payout rate, annualized19.2%19.6%
Expense ratio0.99%1.04%
Cash paid, 1 year26.5%29.2%
Price change, 1 year−25.3%−20.3%
Total return, 1 year+1.8%+10.6%
Benchmark return, 1 year+11.2%+21.8%
Ahead or behind−9.4 pts−11.2 pts
Return of capital, latest estimatenot published100%
Age513 days365 days
Net assets$102m$52m

MAGY in plain words

Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, MAGY paid 26.5% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price fell 25.3%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +1.8%. Magnificent Seven (MAGS) returned +11.2% over the same days, so a holder was behind by 9.4 pts. At its price on Sep 18, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 19.2%, paid weekly.

QLDY in plain words

Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, QLDY paid 29.2% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price fell 20.3%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +10.6%. Nasdaq-100 (QQQ) returned +21.8% over the same days, so a holder was behind by 11.2 pts. At its price on Sep 18, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 19.6%, paid weekly. Defiance estimates that 100% of the distribution paid Sep 17, 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, MAGY or QLDY?
Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, MAGY paid 26.5% of its starting price in cash and QLDY paid 29.2%, so QLDY paid more. Cash paid is not the same as money made: the price change matters too.
Which returned more once distributions are counted, MAGY or QLDY?
With every distribution reinvested, MAGY returned +1.8% and QLDY returned +10.6% over the year to Sep 18, 2026, so QLDY returned more.
Which is cheaper, MAGY or QLDY?
MAGY charges 0.99% a year and QLDY charges 1.04%, so MAGY 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.

MAGY against QLDY, 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, MAGY against QLDY, data as of Sep 18, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/income/magy-vs-qldy Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

How every figure is computed · Standards and sources