QMNV vs VYM
FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Moderate Buffer ETF - November vs Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF
Which is better, QMNV or VYM?
Option Writing against Large Cap Value.
VYM has a lower expense ratio. QMNV led over 1Y and the full window.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | QMNV | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.90% | 0.04%Best |
| AUM | $47M | $83.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 2.22% |
| Holdings | 10 | 608 |
| YTD Return | +11.01%Best | +10.00% |
| 1Y Return | +15.92%Best | +13.75% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +18.81% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +11.63% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 7.8%Best | 10.9% |
| Max Drawdown | -12.8%Best | -14.5% |
| $10,000 over 1.9 years | $13,050Best | $12,580 |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Alternative | Equity |
| Style | Option Writing | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Nov 15, 2024 | Nov 10, 2006 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.9 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Nov 18, 2024 to Oct 2, 2026 (1.9 years).
QMNV vs VYM growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 1.9 years both funds cover.
QMNV vs VYM Performance
FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Moderate Buffer ETF - November (QMNV) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US) and Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF (VYM) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year QMNV returned +15.92% while VYM returned +13.75%. Year to date, QMNV is up 11.01% versus a gain of 10.00% for VYM.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VYM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 10.9% compared with 7.8% for QMNV. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -12.8% for QMNV and -14.5% for VYM. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.58. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
QMNV charges 0.90% per year while VYM charges 0.04%. On a $10,000 position that is $90 vs $4 annually, a gap of $86 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, QMNV currently yields 0.00% against 2.22% for VYM.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of QMNV and VYM you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, QMNV or VYM?
QMNV has an expense ratio of 0.90% while VYM charges 0.04%. VYM is the cheaper option, by $86 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, QMNV or VYM?
Over the past year QMNV returned +15.92% vs +13.75% for VYM, so QMNV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), QMNV annualized +15.04% vs +12.84% for VYM. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, QMNV or VYM?
VYM has been the more volatile fund at 10.9% annualized versus 7.8% for QMNV. Worst drawdown: QMNV -12.8% vs VYM -14.5%.
Should I hold both QMNV and VYM?
QMNV and VYM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.58, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, QMNV or VYM?
QMNV yields 0.00% while VYM yields 2.22%, so VYM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VYM better than QMNV?
VYM has a lower expense ratio. QMNV led over 1Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.