XBCI

ETF performance based on market prices. Drag on chart to select period. Sharpe Ratio uses the one-month T-bill as the risk-free rate. From 2/4/2026 to 10/7/2026.

ETF performance based on market prices. Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized. As of 10/7/2026.

ETF performance based on market prices. As of 10/7/2026.

Family

Neos Funds

Registrant

NEOS ETF Trust

Type

ETF

Asset Class

Other

Peer Asset Class

Digital Assets

Region

US

Peer Group

Digital Assets - Futures (76 peers)

Expense Ratio

0.98%

AUM

$207M

Inception

2/4/2026

Holdings (Reported)

8

Turnover

0%

Equity

-26%

Derivatives

-26%

Net Equity Exposure

0%

Option Notional

209%

The fund invests at least 80% of net assets in Spot Bitcoin ETPs and options on Bitcoin-related instruments. It employs a synthetic options strategy to gain exposure to Bitcoin while generating high monthly income through writing call options, and it utilizes leverage to boost exposure to Bitcoin and income. The fund operates through a controlled foreign subsidiary, allowing for direct investment in Spot Bitcoin ETPs, while managing risks associated with its leveraged and options-based strategies.

Expense ratio and its components from the fund's prospectus fee table. Turnover from market data (10/6/2026). Yield as of 10/6/2026, AUM 9/30/2026. Holdings, asset class, style, peer group and exposures as of 6/30/2026. Strategy summary from the fund's prospectus.

Hover or click for factor definitions. Weighted average of underlying company-level values with weights equal to position size. Solid blue dots mark the fund's position within the clean equity fund universe (5th–95th percentile scale); the shaded band spans the fund's broad class (Digital Assets Funds) 25th–75th percentile, notched at the median. Holdings as of 6/30/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026. Expense ratio, yield, and turnover as of 10/6/2026. AUM as of 9/30/2026.

Shares are percentages of the holdings that carry a country, not portfolio weights. Based on N-PORT domicile; ADRs list under their exchange. Holdings as of 6/30/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.

8 positions · 24.4% in funds

Sector, country and factor detail need a security match; the share of weight that matched is a member figure, so the rows without one appear here with those columns blank. "In funds" adds up the rows tagged Fund — holdings that are themselves funds this app covers, which is what look-through can expand; a held vehicle that files no holdings of its own (a commodity or currency trust, a money-market fund) is not counted and stays a single line. Holdings as of 6/30/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.

Hover or click for definitions. Solid blue dots mark the fund: percentage rows on a 0–100% scale, holdings counts log-scaled across the clean-universe 5th–95th percentile range. The shaded band spans the fund's broad class (Digital Assets Funds) 25th–75th percentile, notched at the median. Holdings as of 6/30/2026.

Sparkline's own holdings-based peer taxonomy (80 share classes across 76 funds). One share class shown per fund — the exchange-listed class where the SEC series has one, else its longest-history class; percentile ranks and medians are computed against the same deduped set. Quartile chips fill the layer the fund's rank falls in (top layer = best quartile). Funds without a full return history rank only on the horizons they cover.

Nearest funds across the whole universe, by holdings and behavior — the peer taxonomy is ignored, so matches can come from any category.

The method columns are members-only — create a free account to see these figures.

Rows are the consensus top matches (a fund must place in at least two methods' top 250 to qualify, and matches missing more than one of this fund's own methods are not ranked — a row scored on fewer methods is a noisier estimate, not a better match). Click a method column to see that method's own top matches across the whole universe instead. Gray (N) beside each method's metric is that fund's rank in the whole universe on that method. Similarity is a percentile among match-grade fund pairs, 0–100 — 87 means the pair is closer than 87% of the strongest matches in the universe, averaged across the methods — so it compares across funds: index clones tie at the top with thousands of other clone pairs, so scores top out in the high 80s to 90s, while a one-of-a-kind fund's best match can score in the 30s. Rows are ordered by the Consensus Rank — the geometric mean of those universe ranks, shown in each cell's tooltip — and the score is held down the list to the level of the closest match above it, so equal scores mean equally close and the number reads as a floor. A dash means that method has no figure for the pair at all (one of them lacks the holdings or return history it needs). Hover a column header for each method's definition. The “Top…” strips above compare against every fund's own top match across the whole universe (they deliberately don't follow the Peer Universe selector); Top Similarity is simply the best match's score, with no reference band; the Holdings and Active Tilt strips carry no reference band because computing every fund's best book overlap would require a full holdings scan per fund — the dot stands alone on its natural 0–100% scale. One share class shown per fund, and a fund's own sister share classes are excluded from its Top-match strips. Holdings as of 6/30/2026. Consensus Rank is the geometric mean of the match's universe-wide rank across the methods (#1.0 = top match on every one). Holdings Overlap = common-holdings weight (sum of the minimum weight across shared positions, long only). Active Tilt Overlap = the same statistic on active weights (holdings minus the fund's own default benchmark, floored at 0), which strips the benchmark ballast that dominates raw overlap.