QDTE vs XDTE
Roundhill's two daily covered-call funds, head to head — the Nasdaq-100 0DTE fund vs the S&P 500 0DTE fund: weekly yield, NAV erosion, risk, and our independent scores.
Same machine, different index. QDTE writes daily 0DTE calls on the Nasdaq-100 and pays the larger weekly distribution; XDTE does the same on the S&P 500 and pays less — but loses less of its share price doing it. As of mid-2026 both funds have given back essentially all of their headline return as a falling NAV: we flag both for capital destruction, and our model scores them a near-level PASS, with XDTE slightly ahead.
Neither is a buy-and-hold compounder. The weekly check is largely your own capital coming back (the issuer estimates distributions as 100% return of capital), so judge these on total return and NAV, not the headline rate — and understand the daily-options mechanics before you own either.
“Edge” marks the more favourable fund on that metric only — not an overall recommendation. Returns and rates are period-dependent; both funds may have launched at different times.
The differences that actually matter
1. Same engine, different index
QDTE and XDTE are the same Roundhill machine pointed at different markets. Both buy synthetic, deeply in-the-money exposure to a large-cap index and then sell zero-days-to-expiration (0DTE) calls every morning, collecting premium that funds a weekly distribution. They launched the same day, charge nearly the same fee, and pay on the same weekly cadence. The only real lever is the underlying: QDTE writes against the Nasdaq-100; XDTE against the S&P 500. That single choice drives the higher premium — and the higher risk — on the QDTE side.
2. Income — QDTE pays the bigger Friday check
This is the comparison that gets searched: which one pays more. QDTE wins on the headline, with a meaningfully higher weekly distribution rate than XDTE, because the more volatile Nasdaq-100 throws off richer daily option premium. But the extra income is compensation for extra risk, not a free upgrade — and on both funds the distribution is currently estimated as 100% return of capital, which means a large part of that “yield” is your own principal being cycled back to you.
3. NAV trajectory — the number the yield hides
This is the standout difference and the one the distribution rate distracts from. Since inception, QDTE’s share price is down about 34% while its distributions returned roughly 69% of the original share price — every dollar of positive total return has come from distributions, not price. XDTE shows the same shape but softer: price down about 25%, distributions around 56% of the original price. So the index that pays you more (QDTE) is also the one bleeding NAV faster. We flag both funds for NAV erosion; the practical read is that XDTE keeps more of your capital intact for a smaller weekly check. Neither fund is recovering its share price — the question is only how fast it declines.
4. Risk and stability
Every stability measure favours XDTE: lower realised volatility and a shallower maximum drawdown, both flowing directly from the S&P 500 being a calmer underlying than the Nasdaq-100. QDTE asks you to absorb Nasdaq-grade swings — and a notably deeper worst-case drawdown — in exchange for the larger payout. Both funds run an essentially all-in synthetic position, so concentration is high on each, and our model rates both High risk.
Which one fits you?
Lean XDTE if you want the steadier of the two: less volatility, a shallower drawdown, and slower NAV erosion, accepting a smaller weekly distribution to get there.
Lean QDTE if your priority is the largest possible weekly cash flow and you can stomach Nasdaq-level swings and faster capital give-back to get it.
Either way: treat these as high-octane income tools, not core holdings. The distribution is largely return of capital, the NAV declines structurally on both, and the daily-options mechanics add costs and execution risk that compound against long-term holders. Judge them on total return and NAV behaviour over time — which is exactly what our full reports track.
QDTE vs XDTE: FAQ
Is QDTE or XDTE better?
Neither is clearly better — they run the same daily 0DTE covered-call strategy on different indices. QDTE (Nasdaq-100) pays a higher weekly distribution but has eroded faster and is more volatile; XDTE (S&P 500) pays less but has held its NAV better and carries a shallower drawdown. Our model scores them close, both a PASS, with XDTE marginally ahead on the better capital-preservation read.
Does QDTE pay a higher yield than XDTE?
Yes. As of mid-2026 QDTE's headline distribution rate runs well above XDTE's, and both pay weekly (52 times a year). The gap reflects the richer option premium on the more volatile Nasdaq-100 — you are being paid more for taking more risk, not getting a better deal.
Are QDTE and XDTE distributions return of capital?
Currently, yes. Per each fund's most recent 19a-1 notice, distributions are estimated as 100% return of capital. ROC is not taxed in the year received and instead reduces your cost basis, deferring the tax — but in these funds it also reflects that the payout is being funded by NAV rather than earned income. Final tax character is set at year end.
Is QDTE riskier than XDTE?
Yes. QDTE carries higher realised volatility and a deeper maximum drawdown than XDTE, because the Nasdaq-100 swings harder than the S&P 500. We rate both funds High risk, but QDTE is the more aggressive of the two.
Why is QDTE's NAV declining?
Because the daily 0DTE calls cap upside while the fund pays out a very high weekly distribution, the share price grinds lower over time. Since inception QDTE's price is down about 34% while distributions returned roughly 69% of the original price — i.e. the headline return is largely your own capital handed back. XDTE shows the same pattern, milder: price down about 25%. We flag both for NAV erosion.
Can I hold both QDTE and XDTE?
You can, and because one tracks the Nasdaq-100 and the other the S&P 500 they aren't redundant. But they share identical 0DTE mechanics, the same return-of-capital distribution dynamic, and the same NAV-erosion risk — so holding both concentrates the same structural bet rather than diversifying it.
Want the full picture on each fund — distribution sourcing, the 19a-1 read, NAV-erosion history, holdings and our running commentary?
Open the QDTE report → Open the XDTE report →