LAPR vs NVDY

LAPR vs NVDY

Which is better, LAPR or NVDY?

NVDY has been ahead.

LAPR has a lower expense ratio. NVDY led over 1Y and the full window.

Lower Fees: LAPRHigher Returns: NVDY

MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.

Side-by-Side Comparison

MetricLAPRNVDY
Expense Ratio0.79%Best1.09%
AUM$11M$1.4B
Dividend Yield5.48%54.70%
Holdings3032
YTD Return+0.12%+15.76%Best
1Y Return+0.04%+23.13%Best
3Y Return (annualized)-+49.62%
Volatility (annualized)1.6%Best27.8%
Max Drawdown-3.8%Best-33.9%
$10,000 over 2.5 years$10,809$20,350Best
Fund FamilyInnovator ETFs TrustYieldMax ETF
CategoryAlternativeAlternative
StyleMulti AlternativeMulti Alternative
InceptionApr 1, 2024May 10, 2023

Not shown on this pair: 5Y Return (annualized), Top 10 Weight.

Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.5 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 1, 2024 to Oct 14, 2026 (2.5 years).

LAPR vs NVDY growth

Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.

Compare LAPR against instead:LAPR vs SPYLAPR vs QQQLAPR vs VOOLAPR vs VTINVDY against:NVDY vs VXUS

LAPR vs NVDY Performance

Innovator Premium Income 15 Buffer ETF - April (LAPR) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust and YieldMax NVDA Option Income Strategy ETF (NVDY) is an ETF from YieldMax ETF. Over the past year LAPR returned +0.04% while NVDY returned +23.13%. Year to date, LAPR is up 0.12% versus a gain of 15.76% for NVDY.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns

NVDY has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 27.8% compared with 1.6% for LAPR. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.

The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -3.8% for LAPR and -33.9% for NVDY. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.

The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.46. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.

Fees and Cost Over Time

LAPR charges 0.79% per year while NVDY charges 1.09%. On a $10,000 position that is $79 vs $109 annually, a gap of $30 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, LAPR currently yields 5.48% against 54.70% for NVDY.

You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.

Whichever of LAPR and NVDY you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.

LAPRNVDY

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, LAPR or NVDY?

LAPR has an expense ratio of 0.79% while NVDY charges 1.09%. LAPR is the cheaper option, by $30 a year on a $10,000 investment.

Which performed better, LAPR or NVDY?

Over the past year LAPR returned +0.04% vs +23.13% for NVDY, so NVDY leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which is riskier, LAPR or NVDY?

NVDY has been the more volatile fund at 27.8% annualized versus 1.6% for LAPR. Worst drawdown: LAPR -3.8% vs NVDY -33.9%.

Should I hold both LAPR and NVDY?

LAPR and NVDY have a monthly-return correlation of 0.46, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which pays a higher dividend, LAPR or NVDY?

LAPR yields 5.48% while NVDY yields 54.70%, so NVDY currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is NVDY better than LAPR?

LAPR has a lower expense ratio. NVDY led over 1Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.