IYRI and RQI both pay monthly REIT income, but RQI's lower expense ratio gives it a structural edge. Distribution sustainability and liquidity are the real risks.
Alpha Score of 59 reflects moderate overall profile with moderate momentum, strong value, weak quality, moderate sentiment.
The launch of NEOS ETFs has given income-focused investors new options for monthly distributions from real estate exposure. Two funds in particular, IYRI and RQI, both target REIT holdings and pay monthly. The choice between them carries real risk for anyone building a watchlist around stable cash flow. The simple read is that both offer monthly pay from diversified REIT portfolios, so either works. The better market read focuses on expense structure and distribution sustainability.
The single clearest difference between the two funds is the expense ratio. RQI carries a lower expense ratio than IYRI. For a fund that pays monthly, even a small expense drag compounds. Over twelve months, a higher expense ratio directly reduces the net yield an investor receives. Given that both funds invest in similar REIT exposure, the cost advantage gives RQI a structural edge. An investor using these funds for regular income should treat expense ratio as the first screen, not the last.
Monthly payment funds often attract investors who need predictable cash flow. That makes distribution policy a risk event. If one fund cuts its distribution or adjusts the payment schedule, the market reaction could be sharp. The author of the original analysis favors RQI in part because its payout profile appears more sustainable, though specific distribution figures are not provided. What matters for a watchlist decision is the fund's ability to maintain its payout through REIT market cycles. A higher distribution yield that comes from a more expensive fund structure is not automatically better. The total return after fees is the relevant metric.
Neither IYRI nor RQI is a large-cap ETF. Low trading volume can mean wider bid-ask spreads, especially when rotating in or out. For a position sized for regular income, the execution cost on entry and exit can eat into realized yield. RQI, given its longer history and lower expense structure, may have more consistent liquidity. IYRI, as a newer NEOS product, carries more uncertainty around secondary market depth. An investor should check average daily volume before committing capital.
A direct comparison of total returns and payout ratios over multiple quarters would help. If RQI continues to deliver comparable or better total return with a lower expense ratio, the case strengthens. Also, increased trading volume in IYRI would reduce liquidity risk for those who prefer its specific portfolio.
A distribution cut in either fund would undermine the monthly pay thesis. A widening expense gap would push yield spreads further. If REIT valuations compress broadly, both funds would suffer, the higher-cost fund would feel it more acutely.
The next round of monthly distribution announcements is the immediate catalyst. Investors should compare any changes in payout amounts and compare them against the expense ratio. The fund that keeps its distribution steady while maintaining lower costs will likely retain the advantage. Until then, the structural preference leans toward RQI.
Prepared with AlphaScala research tooling and grounded in primary market data: live prices, fundamentals, SEC filings, hedge-fund holdings, and insider activity. Each story is checked against AlphaScala publishing rules before release. Educational coverage, not personalized advice.