Options Income via ETFs (Covered-Call ETFs) vs Wheel Income via ETFs (Puts + Covered Calls)
Two published track records side by side — same data, same methodology, zero verdicts.
Options Income via ETFs (Covered-Call ETFs)
coreAn equally-weighted, monthly-refreshed basket of covered-call / option-income ETFs (JEPI, JEPQ, QYLD, XYLD, RYLD, DIVO) — options exposure via real, total-return funds, not a fabricated option backtest. Covered calls trade upside for income: expect a smoother ride but less upside than a stock index. A fund's headline yield is not its total return, and no edge over holding the underlying is claimed. These funds use derivatives and may count as complex products at your broker (appropriateness test).
Full track record →
Wheel Income via ETFs (Puts + Covered Calls)
coreA 50/50, monthly-refreshed blend of the cash-secured put-write and covered-call ETF baskets — the always-on, listed expression of the options wheel. Sells the same short-volatility premium as its two parts, so it's a distinct portfolio, not a second edge. Expect a smoother ride with less upside than a stock index; a fund's yield is not its total return. No edge over the underlying is claimed. These funds use derivatives and may count as complex products at your broker (appropriateness test).
Full track record →
The numbers, side by side
| Options Income via ETFs (Covered-Call ETFs) | Wheel Income via ETFs (Puts + Covered Calls) | |
|---|---|---|
| CAGR | 11.0% | 11.5% |
| Volatility (ann.) | 11.8% | 11.5% |
| Sharpe | 0.70 | 0.75 |
| Sortino | 0.99 | 1.04 |
| Max drawdown | -17.3% | -16.7% |
| Calmar | 0.64 | 0.69 |
| Simulated since | 2020-09 | 2020-09 |
Simulated backtests (up to 6 years of point-in-time data, costs included) — not live results. Methodology: here. Past performance does not predict future results.
What the data says
- Wheel Income via ETFs (Puts + Covered Calls) posted the higher CAGR (11.5% vs 11.0%).
- Wheel Income via ETFs (Puts + Covered Calls) fell less at its worst (-16.7% vs -17.3%).
- Wheel Income via ETFs (Puts + Covered Calls) had the calmer ride (volatility 11.5% vs 11.8%).
These are facts from the published snapshots, not a recommendation — the rules differ in their risk profile. Overlay both equity curves in the interactive comparison tool.