NFLY vs NVDY: Similar Yield, Very Different Total Return

NFLY and NVDY had almost identical trailing yields in the August 2026 Dividend Decoder snapshot: 57.57% and 57.05%. Their measured economic outcomes were not close.

NVDY's Total Return CAGR was 44.01%, compared with 13.31% for NFLY—a difference of 30.70 percentage points. NVDY also had a less-negative price trend, a Coverage Gap that was 31.22 points less negative, and a shallower Max Drawdown.

The direct answer is that similar Yield TTM did not mean similar return support or an equivalent portfolio role. Both funds still carried Payout Support Risk = YES and Stability = LOW, so the comparison does not produce a low-risk choice. It shows how much the underlying stock path and option results can matter even when two headline yields converge.

August 2026 comparison

Both funds had complete three-year evaluation windows. NFLY began trading in August 2023, while NVDY began trading in May 2023. The figures above use the common Dividend Decoder framework rather than the sponsor's displayed distribution rate, so each metric should be compared within this table rather than mixed with differently defined website figures.

Why did the yields look almost identical?

Yield TTM is a trailing measure. It relates distributions over the prior 12 months to price under the CashStreams method. It does not say that the next distribution will match the last one, and it does not establish that two funds generated those distributions through identical return paths.

That distinction is especially important here. YieldMax describes NFLY as a weekly-income ETF that sells call spreads on Netflix, while NVDY sells call spreads on Nvidia. Each strategy seeks option income and some participation in its linked stock's gains. The sponsor also warns that upside participation can be limited and that option premiums may not offset losses when the linked stock declines.

The strategy template is similar, but the exposures are not. Netflix and Nvidia have different businesses, volatility patterns, price paths, and option markets. A trailing yield near 57% therefore does not erase the difference between NFLX-linked and NVDA-linked results.

The price denominator matters as well. A high or rising trailing yield can coexist with a falling share price. That is one reason Yield TTM must be read beside Price CAGR and Total Return CAGR rather than treated as a standalone score.

Did distributions offset the negative Price CAGR?

For both funds, distributions were large enough to leave positive Total Return CAGR despite negative Price CAGR. The degree of compensation was very different.

NFLY had -26.60% Price CAGR and 13.31% Total Return CAGR. Its distributions changed the sign of the overall result, but the retained annualized return was far below its 57.57% Yield TTM. The resulting -44.26% Coverage Gap was the wider of the pair.

NVDY had -20.10% Price CAGR and 44.01% Total Return CAGR. Its price base also declined, but the measured full return was much stronger. Its -13.04% Coverage Gap remained negative, yet it was substantially narrower than NFLY's.

Coverage Gap is Total Return CAGR minus Yield TTM. It is a diagnostic comparison, not an accounting statement about where distributions came from and not a prediction of the next payout. A less-negative gap indicates that more of the trailing yield was reflected in the measured total-return outcome. It does not certify that the payout is stable or sustainable.

Both funds also showed 100% Income Share in the CashStreams snapshot. Under this framework, that means the measured positive result was entirely income-led rather than supported by positive Price CAGR. It is not a tax-character breakdown and should not be confused with the sponsor's estimated return-of-capital figures for individual distributions.

Did the risk measures tell the same story?

No single risk measure dominated the comparison.

NFLY's -42.10% Max Drawdown was considerably deeper than NVDY's -24.33%. That difference is consistent with the weaker full-return outcome in this evaluation window. Someone focused on loss depth would see a material separation between the funds.

However, NFLY had the lower standard deviation—25.45% versus 28.22%—and the lower beta—0.54 versus 1.36. Those measures capture different relationships from Max Drawdown. Lower volatility or beta did not prevent NFLY from experiencing the deeper peak-to-trough decline.

Both funds remained LOW Stability and YES Payout Support Risk. Those shared labels are useful warnings against overinterpreting NVDY's stronger return. They do not say the risk paths were identical, and they do not guarantee what either fund will distribute next.

Why did the underlying stock still matter?

Neither ETF is a direct investment in its named stock, but both depend on options tied to that stock. The fund sponsor states that the strategies can capture only part of an underlying stock's gains while remaining exposed to potential losses from a decline. Call-writing outcomes are also path-dependent: when gains occur, how far the stock moves, and where option strikes sit can all affect participation.

That makes the underlying exposure central to the result. NFLY is not simply “NVDY with Netflix substituted for Nvidia,” and NVDY is not a generic 57% income stream. The option overlay transforms each linked stock's return path, but it does not make the stock path irrelevant.

This is also why per-share distribution amounts should not be compared across the two funds. Their share prices and capital structures differ. Even within one fund, a single weekly increase or decrease is not enough to establish a durable payout trend.

What changed during August?

Both funds' trailing yields declined from July, while their price and total-return measures improved:

The direction was constructive within the CashStreams framework: lower trailing yield arrived alongside less-negative Price CAGR, higher Total Return CAGR, and narrower Coverage Gap. But these are rolling-window changes, not a forecast. Neither fund left the YES Payout Support Risk or LOW Stability category.

The latest August records also moved differently: NFLY's final weekly distribution was slightly above its prior week's amount, while NVDY's was lower. One comparison is not a trend, and it does not explain the multi-year return gap.

How I would use this comparison

The August snapshot suggests a practical order of questions:

1. Which single-stock exposure is intended? NFLX-linked and NVDA-linked risk should be chosen deliberately.
2. How much of the headline yield reached total return? NVDY retained far more in this window, but both Coverage Gaps were negative.
3. How much drawdown can the role tolerate? NFLY's measured drawdown was deeper even though its beta and standard deviation were lower.
4. Is income dependence acceptable? Both funds had negative Price CAGR and 100% Income Share in this framework.
5. Are the shared risk labels being respected? YES Payout Support Risk and LOW Stability argue against treating either yield as a dependable bond-like rate.

NVDY had the stronger measured total-return support in August 2026. That is a historical comparison, not a permanent ranking. The key lesson is broader: when two option-income ETFs show nearly the same trailing yield, the underlying exposure, price path, total return, Coverage Gap, and drawdown can still point to very different outcomes.

You can compare these measures over time in the Dividend Decoder and use the linked fund reports for the current snapshots.

Note: Metrics are exported from Dividend Decoder as a partial snapshot; not investment advice.