CONY vs TSLY: Which Is the Better Pick in 2026?

Overview

CONY and TSLY are single-stock covered-call ETFs from YieldMax that sell weekly call options against Coinbase and Tesla respectively, then distribute the premium income to shareholders. Both charge 1.01% in annual fees and pay out dividends weekly. The critical difference is their underlying volatility: CONY targets Coinbase, a crypto exchange with a beta of 2.83, while TSLY targets Tesla, an EV automaker with a beta of 1.5. That gap in volatility drives a significant spread in their distribution rates—CONY yields 70.49% annualized, TSLY yields 52.49%—because higher implied volatility on Coinbase commands larger option premiums.

How they differ

The biggest distinction is underlying asset volatility and resulting yield. Coinbase's beta of 2.83 versus Tesla's 1.5 explains why CONY's distribution rate (70.49%) towers over TSLY's (52.49%). Both funds use an identical covered-call strategy—selling weekly calls and distributing 100% of the premium collected—but the options market prices Coinbase volatility at a steep premium, so call sellers capture larger premiums each week. That yield advantage comes with risk: higher volatility typically means sharper NAV swings and a greater likelihood that call assignments will cap upside during strong rallies. TSLY has grown to $823M in AUM, more than double CONY's $361M, suggesting broader investor adoption despite CONY's higher headline yield. The smaller AUM at CONY may imply tighter liquidity or a shorter track record (inception November 2022 vs. May 2023). Both carry the same 1.01% expense ratio, so the after-fee comparison is purely about yield pickup and volatility exposure.

Who each is best for

• CONY: Fits income-focused investors with a high tolerance for equity volatility and intraweek drawdowns who want maximum weekly cash flow from a single-stock position and accept that capital appreciation will be capped when out-of-the-money calls expire in-the-money.

• TSLY: Fits income investors seeking a similar covered-call structure but with lower underlying volatility, a larger fund with longer operational history, and a willingness to trade some yield for potentially steadier week-to-week NAV behavior and more established trading volume.

Key risks to know

• NAV erosion at extreme distribution yields. A 70.49% distribution rate on CONY requires the fund to pay out roughly 1.35% per week. If the underlying covered calls generate lower premiums than expected or if realized volatility drops, distributions may rely increasingly on return of capital, eroding the net asset value over months.

• Call cap risk and opportunity cost. Both funds sell calls with a cap on upside. If Coinbase or Tesla rally sharply, the call assignment pins gains at a predetermined level, transforming what could have been significant capital appreciation into capped income. The weekly frequency amplifies this—each week's calls reset the cap.

• Single-asset concentration. Owning a covered-call ETF on one stock eliminates diversification. CONY's exposure to Coinbase sector and regulatory risk is unhedged; TSLY faces Tesla's idiosyncratic operational and competitive risks. A sharp earnings miss or regulatory announcement in either stock will drive both NAV and option premium simultaneously, often in opposite directions.

• Implied volatility compression. Covered-call income depends on sustained or rising implied volatility. If crypto or EV sentiment normalizes and implied vol contracts, call premiums shrink. CONY is more vulnerable here because crypto volatility is cyclical and can evaporate rapidly, cutting income more sharply than in TSL's case.

Bottom line

If you want maximum weekly income and can tolerate high equity volatility and capped upside, CONY's 70.49% yield stands out; if you prefer a similar strategy with lower volatility, larger fund size, and less aggressive distributions, TSLY's 52.49% yield and 1.5 beta offer a middle ground. Both funds will see NAV swings and distribution sustainability depend on continued high implied volatility in their respective underlyings. Past performance doesn't guarantee future results.