Curated comparison
SPYI vs QQQI vs GPIX vs GPIQ
Compare newer active premium-income ETFs by index exposure, fee, yield, and operating history.
Dataset c480dc112b80 · imported Oct 9, 2026 · issuer evidence checked 2026-09-08
Open interactive comparisonDirect answer
The choice starts with portfolio role
Start with the desired equity exposure—S&P 500 or Nasdaq-100—then compare fee, options flexibility, distribution composition, and live track record.
| Fund | Yield | AUM | Expense | Cumulative return | Payout | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SPYITax-aware S&P income | 12.15% | $12.3B | 0.68% | +79.0% | Monthly | Source-reported |
| QQQITax-aware Nasdaq income | 14.40% | $15.0B | 0.68% | +65.0% | Monthly | Source-reported |
| GPIXS&P premium income | 8.10% | $6.0B | 0.29% | +83.0% | Monthly | Source-reported |
| GPIQNasdaq premium income | 9.90% | $6.1B | 0.29% | +105.0% | Monthly | Source-reported |
Yield, AUM, and cumulative return are source-reported and may use different as-of dates. Fees, inception, strategy, and payout cadence are checked against official issuer material. A distribution rate is not a total-return forecast.
Decision framework
Best-for distinctions and trade-offs
| Fund and role | May fit | Structural trade-off | Key risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| SPYITax-aware S&P income | Investors comparing flexible option overlays and distribution tax character, not simply the highest displayed yield. | SPYI uses an active options approach rather than mechanically covering the whole index. That may retain more upside, but the higher fee, short operating history, and distribution composition deserve close review. | Options execution, tax treatment, return of capital, and manager decisions can materially change investor outcomes. |
| QQQITax-aware Nasdaq income | Investors who want Nasdaq exposure and high monthly cash flow while accepting limited history and options complexity. | QQQI aims to preserve more upside flexibility than a full buy-write fund while generating significant monthly income. Its brief record makes scenario analysis more useful than extrapolating a single recent yield. | Nasdaq concentration, option losses, return of capital, and a short live record make its distribution profile uncertain. |
| GPIXS&P premium income | Investors comparing newer, lower-cost active option-income funds tied to broad U.S. large caps. | GPIX seeks a steadier distribution by writing calls on only part of its equity exposure. The partial overlay may preserve more upside than a full buy-write, but the live history is still short. | A limited operating record and active option coverage make behavior across full market cycles unproven. |
| GPIQNasdaq premium income | Investors seeking a comparatively low-fee Nasdaq option-income strategy with monthly payouts. | GPIQ applies Goldman Sachs’ partial call-writing framework to Nasdaq-100 exposure. It may capture more upside than a fully covered strategy, but remains sensitive to growth-stock valuations and manager execution. | Technology concentration and active option decisions can amplify tracking error, while the short record limits stress-period evidence. |
Deterministic planning example
What a $10,000 position implies
Annual distribution estimate = $10,000 × displayed source-reported yield. The monthly equivalent divides that result by 12. Annual fund cost uses the issuer-checked expense ratio and remains separate from distributions.
| Fund | Displayed yield | Est. annual distributions | Monthly equivalent | Annual fund cost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SPYI | 12.15% | $1,215 | $101 | $68 |
| QQQI | 14.40% | $1,440 | $120 | $68 |
| GPIX | 8.10% | $810 | $68 | $29 |
| GPIQ | 9.90% | $990 | $83 | $29 |
This is a static arithmetic scenario, not a forecast or promised payment schedule. It assumes yield and expense ratio remain unchanged and excludes taxes, trading costs, reinvestment, distribution composition, and price or NAV movement. Cash distributions can coincide with a capital loss.
Reviewed research
Go deeper on this comparison
- SPYI, QQQI, GPIX, and GPIQ: Comparing Active Premium-Income ETFs
A framework for comparing newer active premium-income ETFs by equity exposure, option flexibility, fees, distribution quality, and limited history.
Evidence and scorecards
Review each fund’s source record
The comparison reuses validated scorecard facts and keeps unavailable or conflicting fields unchanged. Each scorecard provides its public review status, limitations, and approved evidence path without exposing the private ingestion registry.
Frequently asked questions
Questions about SPYI vs QQQI vs GPIX vs GPIQ
Which of SPYI, QQQI, GPIX, and GPIQ use S&P 500 or Nasdaq exposure?
SPYI and GPIX are built around broad S&P 500 exposure, while QQQI and GPIQ are Nasdaq-100-oriented. That underlying equity choice should come before comparing recent yield because it materially changes concentration and growth-stock sensitivity.
Can recent yields compare these newer premium-income ETFs by themselves?
No. These funds have short operating histories and active option decisions that can change distributions and upside participation. Compare fee, underlying index, option coverage, distribution composition, NAV behavior, and total return over matching periods where available.
Method and limitation
The direct answer and decision table compare visible portfolio roles, costs, payout cadence, source-reported metrics, and stated strategy risks. No composite score ranks these funds. Source-defined cumulative returns can cover different periods and are not treated as like-for-like performance. This educational comparison does not account for your taxes, time horizon, other holdings, or suitability.
Read the methodology and financial disclaimer, then confirm current facts with each issuer.