This March 2026 snapshot reviews the NEO ETF group tracked in Dividend Decoder using the same table layout as the later monthly snapshots.
It is not meant to rank the "best" NEO ETF. The goal is to compare income, price trend, payout support, stability, and month-over-month changes side by side.
| Fund Ticker | Dividend TTM | Price CAGR | Total Return CAGR | Payout Support Risk | Stability | Dividend TTM (MoM) | Price Growth (MoM) | Total Return CAGR (MoM) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BTCI | 43.62% | -24.64% | N/A | Elevated | LOW | -2.41pp | +2.20pp | N/A |
| CSHI | 4.98% | -0.24% | N/A | Low | HIGH | -0.04pp | -0.01pp | N/A |
| IAUI | 10.00% | 17.37% | N/A | Low | LOW | +2.05pp | -22.78pp | N/A |
| IWMI | 14.48% | -2.97% | N/A | Watch | LOW | +0.76pp | -2.98pp | N/A |
| IYRI | 11.67% | -5.15% | N/A | Watch | MID | +0.61pp | -5.40pp | N/A |
| MLPI | 4.65% | 57.40% | N/A | Low | MID | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| NIHI | 6.51% | -4.20% | N/A | Low | LOW | +1.32pp | -19.58pp | N/A |
| QQQH | 9.48% | 9.25% | N/A | Low | LOW | +0.40pp | -2.72pp | N/A |
| QQQI | 15.05% | -0.14% | N/A | Low | LOW | +0.83pp | -2.61pp | N/A |
| SPYH | 7.83% | 9.24% | N/A | Low | MID | +0.96pp | -6.38pp | N/A |
| SPYI | 12.50% | 1.23% | N/A | Low | MID | +0.66pp | -2.54pp | N/A |
| XQQI | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| XSPI | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
How to read the columns
Dividend TTM shows the trailing 12-month cash distribution rate. It is useful for checking the current income profile, but it should not be treated as the full story.
Price CAGR shows whether the fund's price base has been growing or declining over the evaluation window. For this March snapshot, this field follows the same naming convention as later reports, even though the original Reddit table labeled it as price growth.
Total Return CAGR is included to keep the table format consistent with later snapshots. It was not available in the original March export, so it is shown as N/A here.
Payout Support Risk replaces the earlier erosion label. Elevated maps to the previous YES erosion flag, Watch maps to SUSPECT, and Low maps to NO.
Stability reflects recent price-behavior stability based on beta, volatility, and drawdown. It does not mean a fund is safe; it only describes the stability profile in this framework.
MoM columns compare this snapshot with the prior monthly snapshot where data was available. They are not one-month return signals.
What stood out this month
BTCI had the highest income number, but the support picture was weak
BTCI showed the highest Dividend TTM in this group at 43.62%, but it also had -24.64% Price CAGR and Elevated payout support risk.
That combination is why headline yield alone can be misleading. A high distribution rate needs to be read together with price behavior and payout support.
IAUI had a cleaner price-growth profile
IAUI showed 10.00% Dividend TTM and 17.37% Price CAGR, with payout support risk marked Low.
The stability label was still LOW, so the snapshot did not imply low risk. It simply looked cleaner than the higher-yield names from a price-support angle.
IWMI and IYRI were in the watch zone
IWMI and IYRI were both marked Watch for payout support risk.
That does not mean the funds were automatically broken, but it does mean the distribution profile needed more caution than names marked Low.
CSHI had the strongest stability label
CSHI had the only HIGH stability label in this March snapshot. Its Dividend TTM was much lower at 4.98%, but the price behavior was more stable than the higher-income names.
Low volatility and long-term capital preservation are not exactly the same thing, but CSHI clearly had a different role from the more aggressive income ETFs.
SPYI, SPYH, and QQQI sat in the middle of the group
SPYI, SPYH, and QQQI showed moderate-to-high Dividend TTM numbers without an elevated payout support flag in this snapshot.
They were not the highest-yielding funds, but they looked more balanced than BTCI from a payout-support perspective.
Main takeaway
The March 2026 NEO ETF snapshot shows the same issue that appears across many income funds: the highest distribution rate is not always the cleanest income profile.
A practical review needs to compare yield with price trend, payout support, stability, and month-over-month changes. That is why this snapshot puts the metrics side by side instead of only sorting by Dividend TTM.
Note: Metrics are exported from Dividend Decoder as a partial snapshot; not investment advice.