ETF Comparison

MLPA vs MLPI: Which Is the Better Pick in 2026?

A head-to-head comparison of Global X MLP ETF and NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF covering yield, cost, risk, and income potential.

Updated October 16, 2026

How these figures are calculated: methodology.

Best for

MLPAInvestors who want broad equity exposure.
MLPIInvestors who want to maximize current income — roughly 14.30%, generated by selling options premium.

Jump to the side-by-side numbers

Visual comparison

Key metrics

Projected income on $10K

Projections assume the current yield and share price remain constant. Actual results will vary.

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.

MLPA has outpaced MLPI over the year to date, posting a 18.19% total return against 17.27%. 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.
Symbol	YTD cumulative	Since Dec 2025	Volatility	Sharpe	Sortino	Max drawdown
MLPA	18.19%	18.73%	12.7%	1.31	1.95	-7.8%
MLPI	17.27%	19.46%	13.8%	1.27	1.93	-8.6%

Total return with all distributions reinvested on the ex-dividend date (a modeling convention, not the cash-settlement date), split-adjusted, as of October 16, 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 Dec 2025” measures every fund from December 18, 2025 — 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 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.

Distribution rate and SEC yield

Metric	MLPA	MLPI
Forward distribution rate	7.55%	14.30%
Trailing 12-month yield	7.44%	12.62%
30-day SEC yield	7.22%	3.60%

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.

Side-by-side snapshot

Side-by-side snapshot. Each row is one metric; each column is one fund.
Metric	MLPA	MLPI
Full name	Global X MLP ETF	NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF
Issuer	Global X	NEOS
Underlying index	Solactive MLP Infrastructure Index	Master limited partnerships
Last Close	$54.06 as of October 16, 2026	$52.66 as of October 16, 2026
Distribution rate	7.55%	14.30%
Trailing 12-month yield	7.44%	12.62%
30-day SEC yield	7.22%	3.60%
Distribution Safety Score™	96	76
Safety-Adjusted Yield	7.25%	10.87%
Expense ratio	0.77%	0.68%
AUM	$2.28B	$915M
Distribution frequency	Quarterly	Monthly
Objective	Seeks investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of the Solactive MLP Infrastructure Index, providing exposure to U.S. master limited partnerships principally engaged in midstream energy infrastructure activities.	Seeks to deliver high monthly income with exposure to master limited partnerships through an overlay strategy.
Asset class	Equity	Equity
Inception date	04/18/2012	12/18/2025
Beta	0.33	—
Last dividend	$1.02	$0.6276
Ex-dividend date	08/10/2026	09/16/2026

Bottom lineChoose MLPA if you want broad equity exposure. Choose MLPI if you want to maximize current income — roughly 14.30%, generated by selling options premium. There's no free lunch: MLPI's payout comes from selling options, which caps upside and can erode the share price over time, while MLPA keeps full price exposure.

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. MLPI 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.

Learn the mechanics: Return of capital, explained · NAV erosion, explained

Model this comparison:

Compare in my portfolio Forecast income Save to watchlist

Income calculator

See how much monthly income a hypothetical investment would generate in each ETF at current yields.

Global X

ETFs119

Total AUM$93.9B

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 MLPA.

See all ETFs from Global X

NEOS

ETFs20

Total AUM$36.4B

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 MLPI.

See all ETFs from NEOS

Want to go deeper?

Add these ETFs to a sample portfolio and forecast your dividend income over 5+ years — free to start, no credit card.

Compare in my portfolio Forecast income Save to watchlist

Quick verdict

MLPA (Global X MLP ETF) and MLPI (NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF) are both dividend ETFs, but they take different approaches.

MLPI offers the higher yield at 14.30% vs 7.55% for MLPA. 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 0.77%.

They have different reference exposures: MLPA is linked to Solactive MLP Infrastructure Index while MLPI is linked to Master limited partnerships, which means their performance drivers differ.

MLPA is the larger fund by assets ($2.28B), but assets alone do not establish trading costs or liquidity.

Still deciding? Track MLPA & 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.

Add to my watchlist See what a free account includes

Deep dive

Yield & income

On a $10,000 investment, MLPA would generate roughly $188.75 cash per distribution, while MLPI would produce $119.17 cash per distribution, at current distribution rates.

MLPA yield7.55%

MLPI yield14.30%

Cash diff on $10K$69.58

Cost & efficiency

Over 10 years on $10,000, MLPA would cost approximately $770 in fees vs $680 for MLPI (simplified, not compounded). The $90.00 difference may be offset by yield or performance.

MLPA ER0.77%

MLPI ER0.68%

Strategy & risk

MLPA tracks Solactive MLP Infrastructure Index with an energy approach, while MLPI tracks Master limited partnerships with an options approach.

MLPA beta0.33

MLPI beta—

Fund details

MLPA is managed by Global X (launched 04/18/2012) with $2.28B in assets. MLPI is managed by NEOS (launched 12/18/2025) with $915M in assets.

MLPA AUM$2.28B

MLPI AUM$915M

Ready to act?

Open in Comparator Model in portfolio See pricing

Frequently asked questions

What is the current distribution rate for MLPA and MLPI?

MLPA currently distributes 7.55% and MLPI 14.30%, based on fund data updated October 2026. Distribution rate moves with both the payout and the share price, so check the as-of date before relying on either figure.

Is MLPA or MLPI better for dividend income?

It depends on your goals. MLPI 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 MLPA and MLPI?

MLPA (Global X MLP ETF) tracks Solactive MLP Infrastructure Index with an energy approach, while MLPI (NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF) tracks Master limited partnerships with an options approach. They are issued by Global X and NEOS respectively.

Can I hold both MLPA and MLPI?

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 MLPA or MLPI safer?

By Dividend Vision's Distribution Safety Score — a rules-based 0–100 estimate of how resilient a distribution looks, where higher is safer — MLPA scores 96, MLPI scores 76, so MLPA'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, MLPA or MLPI?

MLPA has an expense ratio of 0.77% while MLPI charges 0.68%. Lower fees mean more of your investment returns stay in your pocket over time.

How much income does $10,000 in MLPA vs MLPI generate?

At current rates, $10,000 in MLPA would generate roughly $188.75 cash per distribution ($755.00 annually). The same in MLPI would produce about $119.17 cash per distribution ($1,430.00 annually).

Which has performed better historically, MLPA or MLPI?

MLPA has outpaced MLPI over the year to date, posting a 18.19% total return against 17.27%. Figures are total returns: price change plus every distribution reinvested. Past performance does not guarantee future results.

More comparisons to explore

People also compare MLPI with

Popular comparisons

MLPA vs MLPI — at a glance

Generated October 17, 2026.

Overview

MLPA and MLPI both provide exposure to U.S. master limited partnerships (MLPs) in midstream energy infrastructure, but they pursue fundamentally different yield strategies. The choice between them hinges on whether you prioritize direct index tracking or synthetic income enhancement.

How they differ

The biggest difference is strategy: MLPA is a vanilla index tracker offering broad MLP exposure with no derivative overlay, whereas MLPI employs an options strategy specifically designed to amplify income. On fees, MLPI's 0.68% expense ratio undercuts MLPA's 0.77% by 9 basis points. MLPA is also substantially larger with $2.28B in assets versus $915M for MLPI, a difference that reflects MLPA's decade-plus track record against MLPI's inception date of 12/18/2025.

Who each is best for

MLPA: Fits investors seeking straightforward, index-based exposure to midstream MLPs without derivative complexity, and who are comfortable with lower but potentially more sustainable quarterly distributions tied directly to underlying fund performance.

MLPI: Designed for income-focused investors who prioritize monthly cash flow and are willing to accept the tradeoffs of an options-enhanced strategy in exchange for a meaningfully higher stated yield.

Key risks to know

NAV erosion at elevated distribution yields. MLPI's 14.30% distribution rate substantially exceeds typical MLP dividend yields and energy infrastructure returns.

Options overlay risk. MLPI's use of options strategies to fund its enhanced income introduces convexity and tail-event exposure not present in a direct index fund. Short options positions can generate losses that exceed premium collected, particularly during sharp energy sector reversals or volatility spikes.

Sector concentration and commodity price sensitivity. Both funds are concentrated in midstream energy infrastructure, exposing holders to sustained downturns in oil and gas transportation demand, regulatory changes affecting pipeline usage, and energy commodity price weakness. MLPA's 0.33 beta suggests some stability, though this reflects historical correlation and does not insulate against sector-wide stress.

Recent inception and track record. MLPI began trading 12/18/2025, giving it no observable history through an energy or broader market downturn. The sustainability of its elevated payout structure and the behavior of its options overlay in prolonged stress remains untested.

Bottom line

If you want direct, index-based MLP exposure with a proven track record and lower distribution risk, MLPA's simplicity and $2.28B asset base offer established infrastructure. If you prioritize monthly income and can tolerate options complexity and the elevated distribution risk that comes with 14.30%, MLPI's synthetic strategy and lower expense ratio appeal to a different objective. Past performance does not predict future results, and neither fund's recent or stated yield guarantees principal preservation.

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.

Start Free Open in Comparator Browse Screener

These comparisons follow the Dividend Vision methodology.