The comparison at the heart of Bryan Perry’s pitch is QYLD versus QQQI, the fund he recommended in 2019 against the fund he recommends now. He frames it as an upgrade, and on the most important measure he is right. But the pitch tells only half the story, because the two funds were built for different jobs and the scoreboard flips depending on which window you check.

Two Different Designs

QYLD, the Global X Nasdaq-100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD), is the passive archetype. It sells at-the-money calls on a fixed monthly schedule, collecting the maximum premium and handing away its upside from the first tick higher each month. QQQI, the NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF (QQQI), is the active upgrade. It uses call spreads and judgment about strikes and expirations, collecting solid income while keeping more upside in strong months.

The design difference is the whole story. QYLD optimizes for yield and nothing else. QQQI optimizes for a blend of yield and total return. For an income investor, both pay a monthly check. For anyone who cares what their account is worth at the end of the year, the designs diverge sharply.

Since Launch, QQQI Wins

The clearest measure is what has happened since QQQI launched in January 2024. Over that stretch, QQQI has delivered a meaningfully better total return than QYLD, and in some down months it has nearly kept pace with the Nasdaq-100. The active approach is doing what it was designed to do, and it earned QQQI etf.com’s “best new active ETF” award for 2024. On this window, the pitch is correct: the newer fund is the better-managed product.

The longer history also favors the idea behind the swap, even if it predates QQQI. Since Perry’s October 2019 QYLD recommendation, that fund has returned about 65% total versus roughly 230% for the Nasdaq-100. The passive at-the-money approach systematically sold away a bull market. Any fund that keeps more upside is a genuine improvement over that.

The Window Where QYLD Wins

There is a wrinkle the pitch never mentions. Over the specific trailing twelve months our teardown reviewed, QYLD actually beat QQQI, returning about 16.7% versus QQQI’s 9.3%. The reason is mechanical: in a choppy, rangebound market, the fund that collects the most premium each month can out-earn the one that keeps more upside, because there is less upside to keep.

That single window does not overturn the longer trend, but it exposes the pitch’s framing as incomplete. The claim that QQQI is simply “better” is true over the right horizon and false over the wrong one, which is the difference between an honest comparison and an ad.

The Honest Scoreboard

For an investor who wants the highest current yield and accepts capped upside, QYLD still pays more, and in some market regimes it wins outright. For an investor who wants income without giving away an entire bull market, QQQI is the better choice, and its active management has earned the edge since launch. Neither is “safe,” and neither has principal protection, so the real contest is between two different trades, not between a good fund and a bad one.

Perry’s instinct to prefer the better-managed fund is sound, and on the full record QQQI earns the nod. The only failure is the pitch’s habit of dressing that reasonable upgrade in the language of a CD replacement. For the design difference spelled out, see our covered call strategy explainer, and for the older fund’s full history, our QYLD piece.

What the Pitch Claims vs What It Shows

The pitch’s specific claims deserve to be lined up against what the record actually shows, because the two diverge in ways that matter. The pitch says QQQI is a “safe” upgrade over QYLD. The record shows QQQI is a better-managed fund, which is a different and truer statement, and says nothing about safety, since both funds keep the Nasdaq-100’s full downside. The pitch implies QQQI has outperformed across the board. The record shows QQQI has outperformed since launch but actually trailed QYLD over the most recent trailing twelve months.

Neither of those is a reason to reject the fund, but both are reasons to reject the framing. The pitch wants the comparison to read as a clean upgrade, safe, better, done. The honest comparison is a judgment call between two different trades, where the newer fund wins on management quality and the older one wins on raw yield and, in the most recent window, on total return. The difference between those two versions is the entire value of doing the comparison yourself instead of taking the ad’s word for it.

The contest between the two funds is real, but it has no permanent winner, only a winner for a given investor and a given stretch of market. Perry’s preference for the better-managed fund is a sound default, and QQQI has earned it since launch. The reader who understands that the answer flips by window is the one who has actually learned what the comparison teaches, and who will not be surprised when next year’s scoreboard disagrees with this year’s.

Ready to see the research? Click here to view the Cash Machine presentation.

NewsletterVetter is an independent publication. We receive compensation from some of the services we review through affiliate links. Nothing on this site is investment advice. Always do your own research.