AAPW vs APLY: Which Weekly Dividend ETF Pays More?

Key Differences

AAPW currently yields more at 26.3%, a 1.6 pt spread.

AAPW has stronger NAV protection based on 12-month split-adjusted price behavior (40/40 vs 29.8/40).

APLY is the larger fund at $118.2M, versus $38.0M.

APLY has the longer track record, launched 2023-04-18.

Expense ratio difference: 4.00 bps — AAPW is cheaper to hold.

How each fund builds its exposure

AAPW (Roundhill) and APLY (YieldMax) both aim to convert the volatility of their reference asset into a recurring cash distribution, but the plumbing differs by issuer. Roundhill builds its exposure through its own option-income framework, selling contracts against a reference position and passing the collected premium through as a weekly distribution. YieldMax runs a comparable structure with its own strike selection and roll cadence, which is why two funds on the same underlying can print very different weekly amounts.

The practical consequence is payout shape. A premium-pass-through fund pays more when implied volatility is high and less when markets are calm, so its distribution series is lumpy. A target-rate structure smooths the payout but has to source the difference from the position itself when premium falls short, which shows up in the NAV rather than in the distribution. Over AAPW's and APLY's recorded history that difference is visible in the last-eight-distributions table above.

Total return since the longer track record began

Distribution yield on its own says nothing about whether an investor made money. Measured on split-adjusted prices plus distributions received, AAPW shows 37.0% and APLY shows 20.5%. AAPW is ahead on that basis. Year-to-date price return — the erosion component alone — is -4.1% for AAPW and -10.7% for APLY.

Tax considerations

Both funds distribute weekly, and in both cases the payout is generally a mix of ordinary income, short-term capital gain and return of capital rather than qualified dividend income. The exact split is set by each issuer's realized results and published in its 19a-1 notices and year-end 1099-DIV, so two funds on the same underlying can be characterised differently in the same tax year. Return of capital reduces your cost basis rather than being taxed immediately, which defers rather than removes the liability. Because the cadence is weekly, the tax drag in a taxable account is material — most investors hold these funds inside an IRA or other tax-advantaged account. This is educational information, not tax advice.

Which one makes more sense

AAPW makes more sense if you value scale and liquidity. At $38.0M versus $118.2M, APLY is the larger vehicle, which usually means tighter bid-ask spreads, deeper options liquidity behind the strategy and a longer record to judge. A fund with more assets also has more room to absorb flows without distorting its own option book.

APLY makes more sense if the payout profile suits you better. It currently yields 24.7% against 26.3%, and its NAV protection score is 29.8/40 versus 40/40. If your objective is a predictable weekly cheque, the fund with the steadier distribution series matters more than the one with the higher headline rate.

For most investors the honest answer is that these are the same trade expressed two ways: both rise and fall with the underlying. Holding both does not diversify the exposure — it doubles it. Size the position to the underlying, then pick the wrapper whose payout behaviour and cost you prefer. Nothing here is investment advice.