A head-to-head comparison of Alerian MLP ETF and Global X MLP & Energy Infrastructure Covered Call ETF covering yield, cost, risk, and income potential.
Data updated September 4, 2026
Best for
AMLPInvestors who want broad equity exposure.
MLPDInvestors who want to maximize current income — roughly 12.00%, generated by selling options premium.
Projections assume the current yield and share price remain constant. Actual results will vary.
Total returns
AMLP has outpaced MLPD over the trailing twelve months, posting a 25.19% total return against 13.65%. Measured from May 2024 — when the younger fund began trading — AMLP has compounded at 16.23% a year versus 13.23% for MLPD. MLPD has been the steadier holding, though — annualized volatility of 8.1% against 12.7% for AMLP. Figures are total returns: price change plus every distribution reinvested.
Total return and risk statistics by fund. Each row is one fund; each column is one period or statistic.
Total return with all distributions reinvested on the ex-dividend date (a modeling convention, not the cash-settlement date), split-adjusted, as of September 4, 2026. YTD and 1Y are cumulative; windows of one year or longer are annualized. “Since May 2024” measures every fund from May 8, 2024 — the youngest fund's first trading day — so all funds share one comparison window. Volatility is the annualized standard deviation of daily total returns over the past year. 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 past year) — higher is better. Max drawdown is the largest peak-to-trough total-return decline over the same window — shallower is better.
Side-by-side snapshot
Side-by-side snapshot. Each row is one metric;
each column is one fund.
Seeks investment results that correspond to the price and yield performance of the Alerian MLP Infrastructure Index, providing exposure to energy infrastructure master limited partnerships.
Seeks monthly income and energy infrastructure exposure by investing at least 80% of net assets in the constituents of an index of master limited partnerships and energy infrastructure companies.
Bottom lineChoose AMLP if you want broad equity exposure. Choose MLPD if you want to maximize current income — roughly 12.00%, generated by selling options premium.
How the risk works
Read this before the income numbers below: the strategy mechanics on this page shape what those payouts can cost you.
Capped upside and premium dependence. MLPD generates income by selling options, which trades away part of a strong rally in exchange for premium. Distributions can include return of capital, and a payout the underlying assets cannot sustain shows up as NAV erosion over time — the big yield number is not free.
ETFs and AUM reflect what Dividend Vision tracks — the issuer's full lineup may be larger.
ALPS is known for offering specialized ETFs that focus on alternative income strategies and thematic investing across multiple asset classes. Their lineup of six funds spans income-generating strategies including dividends and master limited partnerships, along with sector-specific and niche opportunities such as renewable energy and real estate. The issuer's portfolio includes notable tickers like AMLP (a flagship MLP fund), REIT (real estate focused), and ENFR (energy infrastructure), positioning them as a provider of alternative income and infrastructure-themed ETF solutions.
See our curated list of related YouTube videos on AMLP.
ETFs and AUM reflect what Dividend Vision tracks — the issuer's full lineup may be larger.
Global X is known for developing thematic and alternative investment ETFs with a strong emphasis on income-generating strategies. Their 37-fund lineup spans diverse categories including covered call funds, SuperDividend income products, digital assets, commodities, and sector-specific investments, alongside traditional bond and risk-managed income options. Notable tickers like DIV, MLPA, and BCCC reflect their specialization in high-yield and alternative income strategies, positioning them as a provider focused on investors seeking yield-oriented and thematically-driven exposure.
See our curated list of related YouTube videos on MLPD.
AMLP (Alerian MLP ETF) and MLPD (Global X MLP & Energy Infrastructure Covered Call ETF) are both dividend ETFs, but they take different approaches.
MLPD offers the higher yield at 12.00% vs 7.39% for AMLP. A higher yield means more current income per dollar invested, though it may come with different risk characteristics.
MLPD is cheaper with an expense ratio of 0.60% compared to 1.01%.
They have different reference exposures: AMLP is linked to Alerian MLP Infrastructure Index while MLPD is linked to Master Limited Partnerships, which means their performance drivers differ.
AMLP is the larger fund by assets ($13.5B), but assets alone do not establish trading costs or liquidity.
Still deciding? Track AMLP & MLPD for free
Create a free Dividend Vision account to keep them on a watchlist, get notified when they declare dividends, and see how much income they would add to your portfolio.
On a $10,000 investment, AMLP would generate roughly $61.58/month, while MLPD would produce $100.00/month, at current distribution rates.
AMLP yield7.39%
MLPD yield12.00%
Monthly diff on $10K$38.42
Cost & efficiency
Over 10 years on $10,000, AMLP would cost approximately $1,010 in fees vs $600 for MLPD (simplified, not compounded). The $410.00 difference may be offset by yield or performance.
AMLP ER1.01%
MLPD ER0.60%
Strategy & risk
AMLP tracks Alerian MLP Infrastructure Index with an energy approach, while MLPD tracks Master Limited Partnerships.
AMLP beta0.27
MLPD beta—
Fund details
AMLP is managed by ALPS (launched 08/25/2010) with $13.5B in assets. MLPD is managed by Global X (launched 04/07/2010) with $28.0M in assets.
Do us a favor — if you found this comparison useful, please share it with a friend researching dividend ETFs.
Frequently asked questions
What is the current distribution rate for AMLP and MLPD?
AMLP currently distributes 7.39% and MLPD 12.00%, based on fund data updated September 2026. Distribution rate moves with both the payout and the share price, so check the as-of date before relying on either figure.
Is AMLP or MLPD better for dividend income?
It depends on your goals. MLPD currently offers the higher distribution yield, which means more income per dollar invested. However, a lower-yield fund may offer better total return or lower volatility. Consider your time horizon and risk tolerance.
What is the difference between AMLP and MLPD?
AMLP (Alerian MLP ETF) tracks Alerian MLP Infrastructure Index with an energy approach, while MLPD (Global X MLP & Energy Infrastructure Covered Call ETF) tracks Master Limited Partnerships. They are issued by ALPS and Global X respectively.
Can I hold both AMLP and MLPD?
Yes — nothing prevents holding both. Whether the combination actually diversifies depends on how much the underlying exposures overlap, which isn't fully measurable from the data on this page; review each security's holdings, sector, and strategy before treating them as complementary.
Is AMLP or MLPD safer?
By Dividend Vision's Distribution Safety Score — a rules-based 0–100 estimate of how resilient a distribution looks, where higher is safer — AMLP scores 98, MLPD scores 84, so AMLP's payout currently looks the more resilient of the two. No score makes an investment risk-free — treat this as a screening signal, not a guarantee, and the leverage, options-income, or crypto caveats flagged on this page apply regardless of score.
Which has lower fees, AMLP or MLPD?
AMLP has an expense ratio of 1.01% while MLPD charges 0.60%. Lower fees mean more of your investment returns stay in your pocket over time.
How much income does $10,000 in AMLP vs MLPD generate?
At current rates, $10,000 in AMLP would generate roughly $61.58 per month ($739.00 annually). The same in MLPD would produce about $100.00 per month ($1,200.00 annually).
Which has performed better historically, AMLP or MLPD?
AMLP has outpaced MLPD over the trailing twelve months, posting a 25.19% total return against 13.65%. Measured from May 2024 — when the younger fund began trading — AMLP has compounded at 16.23% a year versus 13.23% for MLPD. MLPD has been the steadier holding, though — annualized volatility of 8.1% against 12.7% for AMLP. Figures are total returns: price change plus every distribution reinvested. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Explore related screeners
Lateral filters that include these funds — browse the full peer set on DividendVision.
The covered call approach in MLPD systematically sells call options against its positions, trading upside potential for higher current yield.
How they differ
The single biggest difference is strategy: AMLP is a passive index tracker, while MLPD actively manages a covered call overlay to boost yield. On fees, MLPD charges 0.60% versus AMLP's 1.01%, offsetting some of the yield advantage. The gap in AUM is striking: AMLP holds $13.5B while MLPD has only $28.0M, reflecting AMLP's longer track record and broader adoption. Both funds share MLP exposure, so their underlying holdings likely overlap, but MLPD's call sales introduce principal protection dynamics and NAV sensitivity that plain-index AMLP avoids. Works well for buy-and-hold allocations where capital appreciation matters alongside income.
MLPD: Designed for income-focused investors prioritizing monthly cash flow over capital growth and comfortable with options strategies that reduce upside but stabilize distributions. Suits portfolios where current yield and cash-flow consistency outweigh appreciation potential.
Key risks to know
Covered call NAV erosion.MLPD's systematic call selling caps upside and may pressure NAV if energy infrastructure rallies sharply. The 12.00% yield leaves little room for underlying price appreciation; sustained call losses could force distribution cuts or require return-of-capital adjustments.
MLP distribution sustainability. Both funds depend on distributions from their underlying MLPs, which can be cut if commodity prices or energy-sector cash flows deteriorate. MLP distributions are not stable bonds; they rise and fall with business fundamentals.
Liquidity and scale disparity.MLPD's $28.0M is far smaller than AMLP's $13.5B, creating wider bid-ask spreads and less efficient fund operation. Smaller scale increases the risk of tracking error and higher operational drag.
Options volatility risk.MLPD's covered calls profit if energy stocks remain flat or fall, but cost money if markets spike. Rapid rallies can force early call assignment or require rolling at unfavorable prices, disrupting the income stream.
Sector concentration. Both funds are entirely dependent on the energy and infrastructure sector. Regulatory changes, energy transition pressures, or cyclical downturns in midstream assets affect both equally. If you prioritize a 12.00% monthly yield and accept capped upside in exchange, MLPD's covered call structure delivers that trade-off—though its smaller size and options-overlay complexity carry operational and strategy-specific risks. Past performance does not predict future distributions or returns.
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.
Still deciding? Compare them against your own portfolio
See how each ETF fits alongside your real holdings — forecast future income, analyze overlap, and gauge risk. Start a free 7-day Dividend Vision trial and make the call with your full portfolio in view.
