AIQ
Caution
High confidence
ETF Comparison
AIQ vs CHAT: Generative AI Sleeve, or Broader AI Tech?
A head-to-head of Roundhill Generative AI & Technology and Global X Artificial Intelligence & Technology covering concentration.
Updated November 6, 2026
How these figures are calculated: methodology.
Best for
- AIQInvestors who want targeted technology exposure and accept its concentration.
- CHATInvestors who want targeted technology exposure and accept its concentration.
Price and total return
Compare the same available dates. Add a ticker or benchmark below; these controls change the chart only. The snapshot and article describe the original comparison.
Interactive history loads here. The snapshot and period returns remain available when chart history cannot be loaded.
Distribution Safety Score
An estimate of distribution reliability, not price or principal safety, a probability, or a guarantee. Score methodology.
CHAT
Unproven
Limited data
Score snapshot as of . Method 1.11.
Side-by-side snapshot
| Metric |  AIQ |  CHAT |
|---|---|---|
| Full name | Global X Artificial Intelligence & Technology ETF | Roundhill Generative AI & Technology ETF |
| Issuer | Global X | Roundhill Investments |
| Last Close | $56.89 as of November 6, 2026 | $67.56 as of November 6, 2026 |
| Distribution rate | 0.00% | — |
| Trailing 12-month yield | 0.08% | 2.49% |
| 30-day SEC yield | -0.07% | — |
| Distribution Safety Score™ | 52 | 50 |
| Safety-Adjusted Yield | 0.04% | — |
| Expense ratio | 0.68% | 0.75% |
| AUM | $9.57B | $1.39B |
| Distribution frequency | Semi-Annual | Annual |
| Underlying index | — | Actively managed (no tracked index recorded) |
| Objective | — | Actively managed ETF investing in companies positioned to benefit from generative artificial intelligence and related technologies, spanning large-language-model platforms, semiconductor and IT-hardware infrastructure, and enterprise and consumer generative-AI software. |
| Asset class | Equity | Equity |
| Inception date | 05/11/2018 | 05/18/2023 |
| Beta | 1.68 | 2.02 |
| Last dividend | $0.00045 | $1.68 |
| Ex-dividend date | 06/29/2026 | 12/29/2025 |
Total returns
100% reinvested · ex-date convention. Period returns use this fixed assumption, independent of chart settings. YTD and 1Y are cumulative period returns; 3Y, 5Y, and 10Y are annualized. The shared Since-start window is annualized only when it covers at least one year.
AIQ has outpaced CHAT over the trailing twelve months, posting a 7.83% total return against 3.80%. The picture flips over 3 years, though — CHAT has compounded at 34.33% a year, ahead of AIQ at 26.81%. AIQ has been the steadier holding, though — annualized volatility of 25.5% against 34.9% for CHAT. Figures are total returns: price change plus every distribution reinvested.
| Symbol | YTD cumulative | 1Y cumulative | 3Y annualized | Since May 2023 | Volatility | Sharpe | Sortino | Max drawdown |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AIQ | 10.40% | 7.83% | 26.81% | 26.34% | 25.5% | 0.78 | 1.09 | -26.4% |
| CHAT | 10.75% | 3.80% | 34.33% | 31.59% | 34.9% | 0.73 | 1.01 | -37.3% |
Total return with all distributions reinvested on the ex-dividend date (a modeling convention, not the cash-settlement date), split-adjusted, as of November 5, 2026. YTD and 1Y are cumulative period returns; 3Y, 5Y, and 10Y are annualized. The shared Since-start window is annualized only when it covers at least one year. “Since May 2023” measures every fund from May 18, 2023 — the start of shared available history — so all funds share one comparison window. Volatility is the annualized standard deviation of daily total returns over the trailing 3 years. Sharpe and Sortino divide the annualized return in excess of the risk-free rate by, respectively, that volatility and the downside deviation (both over the trailing 3 years) — higher is better. Max drawdown is the largest peak-to-trough total-return decline over the same window — shallower is better.
Distribution rate and SEC yield
| Metric | AIQ | CHAT |
|---|---|---|
| Forward distribution rate | 0.00% | — |
| Trailing 12-month yield | 0.08% | 2.49% |
| 30-day SEC yield | -0.07% | — |
Total return (price change plus reinvested distributions) is the Total returns section above. A 30-day SEC yield can sit far from the headline distribution rate; both numbers are the fund's own published fields.
Visual comparison
Key metrics
Projected income on $10K
Projections assume the current yield and share price remain constant. Actual results will vary.
Bottom lineAIQ and CHAT are both for investors who want targeted technology exposure and accept its concentration — so strategy isn't the deciding factor here. Fees and payouts are close too, so it comes down to which your broker offers commission-free and any share-price or tax-lot preference.
Broad AI-and-technology versus generative AI
AIQ is a wider AI-and-technology book. CHAT concentrates on generative-AI names. Sleeve width is the live difference.
| AIQ | CHAT | |
|---|---|---|
| Sleeve | Broader AI and technology | Generative-AI concentration |
| Expense ratio | 0.68% | 0.75% |
| Fund size | $9.57B | $1.39B |
Income calculator
See how much monthly income a hypothetical investment would generate in each ETF at current yields.
ETFs116
Total AUM$89.1B
ETFs and AUM reflect what Dividend Vision tracks — the issuer's full lineup may be larger.
Global X is known for offering a diverse lineup of thematic and income-focused ETFs that cater to both traditional and alternative investment strategies. Their fund families span income generation through covered call strategies and SuperDividend funds, alongside thematic exposure in areas like digital assets, robotics, and emerging markets, complemented by bond and commodities offerings. The issuer provides broad coverage across sector-specific, risk-managed, and growth-oriented strategies, making their lineup particularly notable for investors seeking specialized exposure beyond conventional equity and fixed-income categories.
See our curated list of related YouTube videos on AIQ.
ETFs57
Total AUM$25.4B
ETFs and AUM reflect what Dividend Vision tracks — the issuer's full lineup may be larger.
Roundhill Investments is known for offering innovative, specialized ETFs that often feature weekly dividend distributions and exposure to trending themes and individual mega-cap stocks. Their lineup spans income-focused strategies, leveraged products, thematic investments in areas like cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence, and weekly-pay funds that appeal to investors seeking frequent distributions. The issuer has built a distinctive niche with products targeting both traditional income seekers and those interested in emerging sectors, offering a diverse range of tickers that go well beyond conventional dividend vehicles.
See our curated list of related YouTube videos on CHAT.
Quick verdict
AIQ (Global X Artificial Intelligence & Technology ETF) and CHAT (Roundhill Generative AI & Technology ETF) are both ETFs, but they take different approaches.
AIQ is cheaper with an expense ratio of 0.68% compared to 0.75%.
AIQ is the larger fund by assets ($9.57B), but assets alone do not establish trading costs or liquidity.
Top-holdings overlap
Positions that appear in every fund's top 10. Issuers disclose only the largest weights, so this captures the overlap of the concentrated end of each book — not the full portfolios.
4 shared positions
AIQ 12.9% of its top-10 weight
CHAT 19.6% of its top-10 weight
Deep dive
Yield & income
On a $10,000 investment at current distribution rates, AIQ has no reported distribution yield yet, so a cash estimate is not available, while CHAT has no reported distribution yield yet, so a cash estimate is not available.
AIQ yield—
CHAT yield—
Cost & efficiency
Over 10 years on $10,000, AIQ would cost approximately $680 in fees vs $750 for CHAT (simplified, not compounded). The $70.00 difference may be offset by yield or performance.
AIQ ER0.68%
CHAT ER0.75%
Strategy & risk
AIQ is an ETF built around technology exposure, while CHAT is an actively managed ETF built around technology exposure. Beta is 1.68 for AIQ and 2.02 for CHAT, making AIQ the less sensitive to market moves of the two by this measure.
AIQ beta1.68
CHAT beta2.02
Fund details
AIQ is managed by Global X (launched 05/11/2018) with $9.57B in assets. CHAT is managed by Roundhill Investments (launched 05/18/2023) with $1.39B in assets.
AIQ AUM$9.57B
CHAT AUM$1.39B
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between AIQ and CHAT?
AIQ (Global X Artificial Intelligence & Technology ETF) is a broader AI-and-technology book. CHAT (Roundhill Generative AI & Technology ETF) concentrates on generative-AI names. Sleeve width is the live difference. Cost is 0.68% versus 0.75%; size is $9.57B versus $1.39B. Distributions are 0.00% and — as of November 2026.
Which of AIQ or CHAT pays more dividend income?
Neither AIQ nor CHAT currently reports a distribution yield, so neither is an income fund today. Compare them on holdings, cost, and total return instead.
Can I hold both AIQ and CHAT?
You can, but expect meaningful overlap: 4 of the disclosed top-10 positions are shared (see the holdings-overlap section above). Holding both may double up on the same underlying names rather than diversify.
Is AIQ or CHAT safer?
By Dividend Vision's Distribution Safety Score — a rules-based 0–100 estimate of how resilient a distribution looks, where higher is safer — they are effectively tied: AIQ scores 52, CHAT scores 50. Neither has a clear safety edge on that measure. AIQ has also been less sensitive to market moves (beta 1.68 vs 2.02 for CHAT). No score makes an investment risk-free — treat this as a screening signal, not a guarantee.
Which has lower fees, AIQ or CHAT?
AIQ has an expense ratio of 0.68% while CHAT charges 0.75%. Lower fees mean more of your investment returns stay in your pocket over time.
How much income does $10,000 in AIQ vs CHAT generate?
At current distribution rates, AIQ has not established a distribution history yet, so a cash estimate is not available. CHAT has not established a distribution history yet, so a cash estimate is not available.
Which has performed better historically, AIQ or CHAT?
AIQ has outpaced CHAT over the trailing twelve months, posting a 7.83% total return against 3.80%. The picture flips over 3 years, though — CHAT has compounded at 34.33% a year, ahead of AIQ at 26.81%. AIQ has been the steadier holding, though — annualized volatility of 25.5% against 34.9% for CHAT. Figures are total returns: price change plus every distribution reinvested. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
More comparisons to explore
People also compare AIQ with
People also compare CHAT with
Popular comparisons
AIQ vs CHAT — at a glance
Generated November 1, 2026.
Figures quoted in this analysis are from its generation date and may lag the live snapshot table above, which always shows the latest data.
Overview
AIQ and CHAT are both technology ETFs with artificial intelligence exposure, but they differ fundamentally in construction and mandate. AIQ is a passively managed fund tracking a broad global index of AI and technology companies, while CHAT is an actively managed fund that selects companies benefiting from generative AI specifically—including large-language-model platforms, semiconductors, and enterprise software. The active approach gives CHAT narrower focus; the passive approach gives AIQ wider diversification across the AI ecosystem.
How they differ
CHAT is actively managed and tilts heavily toward generative AI platforms and infrastructure, whereas AIQ follows a passive index spanning artificial intelligence and adjacent technology sectors more broadly. That structural difference drives their second major distinction: CHAT has a beta of 2.02 versus AIQ's 1.68, meaning CHAT is more sensitive to market moves and more concentrated on the highest-growth corner of AI. On cost, AIQ's expense ratio of 0.68% trails CHAT's 0.75% by 7 basis points, a modest gap that reflects the active management premium.
Who each is best for
AIQ: Fits investors who want broad exposure to artificial intelligence and technology innovation without active manager selection, and who accept market-level concentration risk in exchange for lower fees and simpler tax treatment.
CHAT: Designed for investors who believe active managers can identify the most promising generative AI opportunities and who are comfortable with a narrower, higher-beta portfolio focused on the fastest-growing segment of the AI landscape.
Key risks to know
- Concentrated sector and theme risk. Both funds are heavily weighted to technology and AI. A correction in AI valuations, slowing demand for semiconductor infrastructure, or shifts in how enterprises adopt generative AI could sharply impact both simultaneously. Your holdings may overlap more than their different approaches suggest.
- High beta and volatility in CHAT. With a beta of 2.02, CHAT amplifies broad market swings. A 10% market decline could translate into a roughly 20% decline in CHAT. AIQ's 1.68 beta is lower but still well above the market average, so neither is a defensive choice.
- Active management risk in CHAT. Active selection introduces the risk that CHAT's manager underperforms its benchmark or peers. Generative AI is fast-moving; misjudging which companies will lead could cause CHAT to lag despite higher fees.
- AIQ's distribution yield is zero. AIQ pays no dividend, so all returns depend on price appreciation. An investor seeking income will find neither fund useful, but AIQ's lack of distributions also means no reinvestment drag from taxable dividends.
Bottom line
If you want broad AI exposure with lower fees and less volatility, AIQ's passive approach and 1.68 beta fit a buy-and-hold strategy. If you believe active selection can outperform in the generative AI space and can tolerate a 2.02 beta, CHAT's focused mandate appeals to a higher-conviction, higher-risk appetite. Neither fund's past performance predicts future results, and both carry concentrated AI and technology sector risk worth monitoring.
AI-generated analysis for educational purposes only. Verify important details independently; past performance does not guarantee future results.
Learn the method
The metrics behind this comparison, explained in the Academy.
These comparisons follow the Dividend Vision methodology.