Every fund in this ranking is scored on the same six weighted criteria, measured since inception and compared against its own benchmark. The ranking is not a yield list, not a one-year performance table, and not an endorsement. It is a relative quality assessment across a full market cycle.
Comprehensive rankings of covered call ETFs based on our 6-factor scoring methodology
| Rank | Ticker | Name | Benchmark | Score | Total Return | Downside Protection | Upside Participation | Consistency | Expense Ratio | Liquidity | Maturity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Amplify CWP International Enhanced Dividend Income ETF | EFA | 8.64 | 10.0 | 7.0 | 9.4 | 10.0 | 4.4 | 6.4 | ||
| 2 | Invesco Nasdaq-100 Income Advantage ETF | Nasdaq | 8.04 | 8.3 | 7.5 | 7.6 | 10.0 | 7.6 | 5.8 | ||
| 3 | Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF | Nasdaq | 7.68 | 8.6 | 6.1 | 8.0 | 9.6 | 5.6 | 5.9 | ||
| 4 | Goldman Sachs S&P 500 Premium Income ETF | S&P 500 | 7.60 | 8.8 | 4.1 | 8.8 | 9.7 | 8.9 | 5.5 | ||
| 5 | Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Premium Income ETF | Nasdaq | 7.57 | 8.6 | 4.5 | 8.5 | 9.7 | 8.9 | 5.3 | ||
🔒23 more funds ranked. Pro unlocks the full table. The top 5 are public. The next 23 funds, all four time windows, and full historical data are available with a Pro subscription. See every score, every criterion, every month. Start free trial$34/month · Cancel anytime | |||||||||||
| 6 | — | Upgrade to see | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 7 | — | Upgrade to see | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 8 | — | Upgrade to see | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 9 | — | Upgrade to see | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 10 | — | Upgrade to see | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 11 | — | Upgrade to see | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 12 | — | Upgrade to see | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 13 | — | Upgrade to see | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 14 | — | Upgrade to see | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 15 | — | Upgrade to see | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 16 | — | Upgrade to see | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 17 | — | Upgrade to see | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 18 | — | Upgrade to see | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 19 | — | Upgrade to see | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 20 | — | Upgrade to see | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 21 | — | Upgrade to see | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 22 | — | Upgrade to see | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 23 | — | Upgrade to see | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 24 | — | Upgrade to see | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 25 | — | Upgrade to see | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 26 | — | Upgrade to see | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 27 | — | Upgrade to see | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 28 | — | Upgrade to see | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
Each row shows one fund. The Rank column reflects the composite score, not the yield and not the year-to-date return. A fund can pay 15% and still rank in the middle if its NAV has eroded significantly, or pay 8% and rank near the top if its capital has held steady.
The six component scores (total return, downside protection, upside participation, consistency, expense ratio, liquidity) show where a fund earns its composite. Two funds with the same composite can have very different profiles: one might lead on upside capture and lag on downside protection, another might do the opposite.
Maturity stars measure the fund's age, not its quality. A five-star fund has more than five years of history; a one-star fund has less than one year. Newer funds have less data to demonstrate consistency and NAV preservation, which mechanically penalizes them on the composite. A low score for a young fund is not evidence of poor management.
The default ranking uses inception, the full history of each fund since launch. This is the longest and most stable window, and it is the one displayed publicly.
Three additional windows are calculated every month: 3 years (trailing 36 months), 1 year (trailing 12 months), and 3 months (trailing 3 months). Shorter windows react faster to recent market conditions but are noisier. A fund that dominates the 3-month window has performed well recently; it has not necessarily demonstrated the characteristics that matter over a full cycle.
Pro subscribers can switch between all four windows to see how a fund's ranking changes over time. A fund that ranks fourth on inception and seventeenth on 3 months is telling a different story than one that ranks consistently across all four windows.
Covered call ETFs are often compared by yield alone. Yield is easy to read and easy to advertise. But a distribution yield can be funded by returning capital rather than earnings. When that happens, the fund NAV erodes over time and the investor is partly receiving their own money back.
The composite score forces a more honest comparison. It asks whether the fund has actually preserved capital, whether it participated in rallies without giving away the full upside, and whether the distribution has been stable. Yield is one input among six, and it enters the score indirectly through the total return and consistency criteria.
Full methodology, including formulas and weighting rationale, is documented on the methodology page.
The ranking above is updated every month. As of the latest update, the top-scored fund across the six criteria is listed first. The score is not the same as yield: a fund can pay 15% and still rank in the middle if it erodes NAV.
Each fund receives a composite score from 0 to 10, calculated from six weighted criteria measured since inception: total return versus benchmark, downside protection, upside participation, distribution consistency, expense ratio, and liquidity. Higher is better.
The top five rankings are public. The full 28-fund ranking, with all four time windows (inception, 3 years, 1 year, 3 months) and historical data, is available with a Pro subscription at $34 per month.
The ranking is recalculated on the first of every month, using the latest month-end data. Historical months are preserved so scores can be tracked over time.