IAUI vs MLPI: Gold or Energy-Infrastructure Income?
IAUI uses gold ETPs, synthetic long positions, and written calls. MLPI invests in MLP and energy-infrastructure exposure with a call overlay. Gold-price exposure differs from operating-business cash flows; neither fund's distribution rate establishes capital preservation.
Data updated September 4, 2026
Best for
IAUIInvestors who want gold-linked option income and accept commodity-price risk.
MLPIInvestors who want energy-infrastructure option income and accept concentrated business risk.
Projections assume the current yield and share price remain constant. Actual results will vary.
Total returns
IAUI has lagged MLPI over the year to date, posting a -0.17% total return against 19.15%. MLPI has been the steadier holding, though — annualized volatility of 13.2% against 25.8% for IAUI. 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 Dec 2025” measures every fund from December 18, 2025 — 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 shared window since Dec 2025. 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 shared window since Dec 2025) — 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.
Bottom lineChoose IAUI if you want gold-linked option income and accept commodity-price risk. Choose MLPI if you want energy-infrastructure option income and accept concentrated business risk. Compare net total returns over matching dates, distribution sources, and current holdings. A distribution rate is not a return forecast, and tax return of capital alone does not establish economic loss. Payments and prices can fall.
Gold-linked exposure versus energy-infrastructure businesses
IAUI uses gold ETPs, synthetic long positions, and written calls. MLPI invests in MLP and energy-infrastructure exposure with a call overlay. Gold-price exposure differs from operating-business cash flows; neither fund's distribution rate establishes capital preservation.
IAUI
MLPI
Approach
Gold ETPs, synthetic long exposure, and calls
MLP/energy-infrastructure equities and calls
Risk review
Gold-price, derivative, and variable-distribution risks
Energy-infrastructure, financing, regulatory, tax, and option risks
Expense ratio
0.79%
0.68%
Portfolio fit
Review combined holdings and weights
Review combined holdings and weights
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. IAUI and MLPI generate 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.
NEOS is known for developing specialized income-focused ETFs that employ strategies like covered calls, hedging, and enhanced yields across various asset classes. The firm manages 19 funds organized into nine distinct families, including offerings in equity high income, fixed income enhancement, digital assets, and alternative strategies, with popular tickers like SPYI (S&P 500 covered call), QQQI (Nasdaq-100 covered call), and QQQH (Nasdaq-100 hedged equity income). NEOS distinguishes itself in the ETF landscape through its emphasis on income generation and downside protection strategies rather than traditional growth approaches.
See our curated list of related YouTube videos on IAUI and MLPI.
IAUI (NEOS Gold High Income ETF) and MLPI (NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF) are both monthly-pay dividend ETFs, but they take different approaches.
MLPI offers the higher yield at 14.06% vs 12.05% for IAUI. A higher yield means more current income per dollar invested, though it may come with different risk characteristics.
MLPI is cheaper with an expense ratio of 0.68% compared to 0.79%.
They have different reference exposures: IAUI is linked to Gold ETPs while MLPI is linked to Master limited partnerships, which means their performance drivers differ.
IAUI is the larger fund by assets ($600M), but assets alone do not establish trading costs or liquidity.
Still deciding? Track IAUI & MLPI 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, IAUI would generate roughly $100.42/month, while MLPI would produce $117.17/month, at current distribution rates. Both pay monthly distributions.
IAUI yield12.05%
MLPI yield14.06%
Monthly diff on $10K$16.75
Cost & efficiency
Over 10 years on $10,000, IAUI would cost approximately $790 in fees vs $680 for MLPI (simplified, not compounded). The $110.00 difference may be offset by yield or performance.
IAUI ER0.79%
MLPI ER0.68%
Strategy & risk
IAUI uses gold ETPs, synthetic long positions, and written calls. MLPI invests in MLP and energy-infrastructure exposure with a call overlay. Gold-price exposure differs from operating-business cash flows; neither fund's distribution rate establishes capital preservation. Beta describes historical benchmark sensitivity, not guaranteed downside protection.
Fund details
IAUI is managed by NEOS (launched 06/05/2025) with $600M in assets. MLPI is managed by NEOS (launched 12/18/2025) with $46.4M in assets.
Do us a favor — if you found this comparison useful, please share it with a friend researching dividend ETFs.
Frequently asked questions
Does owning MLPI mean receiving each underlying partnership's K-1?
NEOS describes MLPI shareholder reporting through Form 1099 rather than partnership K-1s. The fund wrapper still has tax considerations; review its prospectus and final tax forms. IAUI's gold exposure does not make it a stable cash substitute, and neither fund guarantees its distribution.
How should I compare risk and ownership costs?
Use matching dates and definitions for returns, distributions, and fees. Beta describes historical benchmark sensitivity, not guaranteed downside protection. Check current bid-ask spreads and premiums or discounts; AUM alone does not determine the price available for your order.
Explore related screeners
Lateral filters that include these funds — browse the full peer set on DividendVision.
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.
