Best CHPY Alternatives in 2026

This category, despite its naming, blends traditional semiconductor index ETFs with derivative-income funds tracking similar underlying exposure. The seven funds shown span five issuers, with VanEck and YieldMax each represented twice. The group's 6.86% average yield is heavily skewed by two option-income products — NVDY and SOXY — while the remaining five are conventional semiconductor index trackers with minimal yields. This bifurcation reflects a broader trend of option-income ETFs launching alongside established index funds to offer higher current income from similar sector exposure, often at the cost of higher expense ratios and different risk profiles.

• NVDY shows the highest yield (32.04%) and the highest expense ratio (1.09%) among the funds shown above, consistent with its options-based income strategy.
• SOXQ carries the lowest expense ratio in this group at 0.19%, well below the category average of 0.57%.
• AUM is heavily concentrated at the top, with SMH at $66.4B dwarfing SOXY at $67M — a gap of roughly three orders of magnitude among the funds shown above.
• Distribution frequency varies widely across this small set, from SMH and SMHX paying annually to NVDY paying weekly and SOXY paying monthly.

• Strategy mismatch: several funds on this list track a different index or use a different income mechanism than CHPY, so swapping into one changes the exposure — upside participation, payout cadence, and tax character can all shift, not just the ticker.
• Single-name concentration: option-income funds built on one underlying stock inherit that company's full drawdown risk, and a sharp decline can overwhelm months of option premium.
• Concentration in one theme: most funds here focus on technology, so the whole list tends to draw down together when that corner of the market falls out of favor — diversification across the table is lower than the fund count suggests.
• Expense drag: expense ratios in this group average 0.57% — several times what broad index funds charge — and that cost compounds directly against total return.
• Short track records: 2 of the 7 funds launched within the last three years, so their distribution history is too short to judge payout durability across a full market cycle.

• Universe: a hand-curated peer set, split into close peers (1 here — same core exposure and same income mechanism, so a like-for-like swap) and broader substitutes (a different index, underlying asset, or income mechanism). Every fund is labelled in the Strategy fit column; CHPY itself is excluded.
• Eligibility: active ETFs only — liquidated, delisted, and renamed funds drop out automatically. Leveraged and inverse products are never listed: a daily-reset 2x or -1x fund is not an alternative to a long income position.
• Ranking: assets under management, used only as a fund-size ranking. Never ranked by yield — yields are shown as data, not used to order the list.
• Fit: how each fund's strategy differs from CHPY — and who each one suits — is covered in the strategy notes and FAQ below.