DRMP vs HBMX: Which Is the Better Pick in 2026?

Overview

DRMP and HBMX are both actively managed ETFs from Tuttle Capital focused on memory semiconductor companies and their supply chains, but they pursue opposite income strategies. DRMP emphasizes current income through weekly put credit spreads on memory-stack securities, while HBMX targets long-term capital appreciation with no stated distribution program. Both launched in June 2026 and charge 0.95% in annual fees.

How they differ

The fundamental distinction is income strategy: DRMP generates a 40.08% distribution rate paid weekly via systematic options overlay (put credit spreads), while HBMX distributes annually with no stated yield and focuses on underlying price appreciation. This shapes the risk profile sharply — DRMP's high yield is dependent on continued volatility in memory semiconductor options markets and income from call premium; HBMX holds concentrated positions in the same sector but without income generation, meaning returns come purely from capital gains. DRMP's small AUM of $6.41M also reflects its niche, options-driven structure, while HBMX's capital base is not disclosed but appears to operate in the same startup cohort. Both funds are non-diversified or concentrated by design, amplifying exposure to memory-stack company performance and valuation swings.

Who each is best for

• DRMP: Fits investors seeking regular, substantial current income from a focused thematic allocation and comfortable with the volatility and complexity of options-based strategies that can cause NAV swings between distribution dates.

• HBMX: Designed for growth-oriented investors with a conviction in the memory semiconductor and AI infrastructure thesis who can tolerate concentrated, non-diversified sector exposure without relying on near-term distributions.

Key risks to know

• Options overlay and NAV erosion risk (DRMP). A 40.08% annualized distribution rate funded primarily by put credit spread premiums creates pressure for NAV decline if memory-sector volatility contracts or if short put positions are assigned at unfavorable prices. Sustained premium collection depends on sustained implied volatility; mean reversion in options pricing could materially reduce income and force cuts.

• Concentration in memory semiconductor cyclicality. Both funds hold highly concentrated exposure to DRAM, NAND, and HBM producers during a period of intense AI capex cycle. Memory-chip demand and pricing are cyclical; a downturn in cloud capex or AI infrastructure spending, or oversupply in NAND/DRAM, would erode valuations across both portfolios simultaneously.

• Assigned-share and liquidity risk in DRMP. As DRMP sells put credit spreads, assignment of shares at strike prices above current market levels could force the fund to hold memory-semiconductor positions involuntarily, locking in losses and complicating the weekly distribution schedule.

• Tiny asset base and redemption risk. DRMP's $6.41M AUM is extremely small for an ETF; low trading volume and potential for fund closure or forced liquidation increase the risk of unexpected costs or forced exits for shareholders.

• No income cushion (HBMX). Without distributions, HBMX offers no offsetting cash flow if the memory-semiconductor thesis stalls or valuations compress; investors are entirely reliant on capital appreciation, which could be delayed or negative for extended periods.

Bottom line

DRMP trades sector conviction for current income via options leverage, accepting NAV volatility and complexity; HBMX bets purely on long-term memory-semiconductor upside without distributions. If you need regular income and can tolerate options mechanics and potential NAV swings, DRMP's structure offers a distinctive vehicle; if you prefer a simpler, growth-only approach to the same sector, HBMX aligns with that goal. Both are concentrated sector bets with small track records — past performance does not predict future results, and the memory-semiconductor cycle remains a dominant risk for either.