TEST vs TSII vs TSLP vs TSLW vs TSYY: Which Fits Each Goal in 2026?

Overview

These five securities all provide weekly or monthly income from Tesla exposure through options strategies, but they differ sharply in their leverage, derivative structure, and yield target. TEST and TSLP use straightforward covered calls on TSLA stock; TSII layers in a call spread and protective put; TSLW uses leverage to amplify weekly returns to 120% of TSLA's move; TSYY sells put spreads on leveraged TSLA ETFs. Yields range from 24.39% to 56.92% annualized, reflecting the complexity and embedded leverage across these strategies.

How they differ

The biggest structural split is leverage and underlying complexity. TSLW explicitly targets 120% of TSLA's weekly return using leverage, while TEST and TSLP stick to unleveraged covered calls on TSLA shares directly. TSII and TSYY both use multi-leg derivative strategies—TSII adds a protective put to limit downside, while TSYY writes puts on leveraged TSLA ETFs, introducing a second layer of synthetic exposure.

Yield and distribution mechanics diverge sharply. TSLW offers the highest yield at 56.92% annualized on the smallest asset base ($970,199 AUM), while TEST targets 24.39% with weekly payouts and the lowest beta (1.4885). TSII claims 45.68% yield with a beta of 2.1635, suggesting larger swings in NAV; TSYY sits at 44.05% with a more moderate beta of 1.4042. TSLP's 26.96% yield is the second-lowest, but it's the only fund distributing monthly rather than weekly, and it has the oldest inception date (October 2023).

Expense ratios cluster tightly around 1.0%, except TSII at 1.52%. AUM varies by an order of magnitude: TSYY leads at $60.6M, TSII follows at $28.6M, while TSLW's $970,199 is substantially smaller, suggesting liquidity and tracking challenges. Beta ranges from TEST's 1.4885 to TSLW's 2.4707, reflecting the leverage and leverage-on-leverage dynamics embedded in TSLW's structure.

Who each is best for

• TEST: Fits investors seeking moderate income from Tesla with weekly distributions and lower volatility relative to the peer set; the covered call structure caps upside but provides a lower beta profile (1.4885).

• TSII: Designed for investors willing to accept higher volatility (beta 2.1635) in exchange for above-average yield, with the trade-off that the protective put collar may cap gains and add drag during strong rallies.

• TSLP: Matches investors preferring monthly income rhythm over weekly payouts and comfortable with a mid-range yield; the October 2023 inception date provides more historical track record than newer peers.

• TSLW: Fits return-focused investors seeking amplified weekly payouts in a high-conviction, short-term trading framework; the leverage and micro AUM make this a concentrated tactical position, not a core holding.

• TSYY: Designed for yield seekers comfortable with put-spread mechanics on leveraged ETF baskets; the 1.4042 beta suggests lower swing in share price despite the high yield, appealing to investors prioritizing income stability over capital appreciation.

Key risks to know

• NAV erosion at elevated distribution yields. Four of these five funds distribute 44%+ annualized yield. TSLW's 56.92% yield on an unleveraged TSLA position nearly requires return-of-capital or option premium decay to fund payouts; distributions at this level historically tend to erode share price over multi-year periods. TSII, TSYY, and TSLW all carry this risk acutely.

• Leverage and volatility amplification. TSLW explicitly targets 120% of TSLA's weekly return and carries a beta of 2.4707—the highest in the group. TSYY sells puts on leveraged TSLA ETFs, introducing compounding leverage if the underlying basket declines. Both structures magnify drawdowns during periods of TSLA weakness.

• Call cap and opportunity cost on covered calls. TEST, TSLP, and TSII all use call overlays that cap upside gains. During sustained rallies in TSLA (as occurred in recent months), these funds would lag a buy-and-hold TSLA position while still holding the full downside risk.

• Micro AUM and liquidity drag. TSLW's $970,199 in AUM is illiquid for institutional investors and risks structural closure; TEST's $2.72M and TSLP's $16.1M are also modest, which can translate to wider bid-ask spreads and tracking error over time.

• Put-spread credit risk and mark-to-market volatility. TSYY's strategy of selling put spreads on leveraged TSLA ETF baskets introduces counterparty and mark-to-market risk; sharp declines in the underlying basket could force early assignment or require cash to manage positions, creating unexpected liquidity needs.

Bottom line

If you want steady weekly income with a measured beta and a simple covered call structure, TEST offers the lowest yield but also the lowest volatility and smallest fee load. If you're willing to accept higher leverage and NAV decay risk in pursuit of yield north of 44%, TSII, TSYY, and especially TSLW push further out the risk curve—TSYY through put mechanics, TSLW through explicit 2.47x beta leverage. TSLP sits in the middle on yield (26.96%) with monthly distributions and the longest operating history. These are tactical income vehicles, not core equity holdings, and all carry material principal risk tied to the yield they promise; past performance does not predict future results.