AAPW vs. QYLD

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

AAPW (AAPL WeeklyPay™ ETF) and QYLD (Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AAPW is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by Roundhill, while QYLD is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the CBOE NASDAQ-100 Buy Write V2. AAPW is actively managed, while QYLD is passively managed. Over the past year, AAPW returned 59.54% vs 23.93% for QYLD. At a 0.47 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. AAPW charges 0.99%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for QYLD.

Performance

AAPW vs. QYLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AAPL WeeklyPay™ ETF (AAPW) and Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AAPW achieves a 15.21% return, which is significantly higher than QYLD's 7.88% return.

AAPW

• 1D: -1.85%
• 1M: 14.30%
• YTD: 15.21%
• 6M: 9.47%
• 1Y: 59.54%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QYLD

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: 1.62%
• YTD: 7.88%
• 6M: 9.97%
• 1Y: 23.93%
• 3Y*: 13.80%
• 5Y*: 8.43%
• 10Y*: 9.80%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

AAPW vs. QYLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
AAPW AAPL WeeklyPay™ ETF	15.21%	8.56%
QYLD Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF	7.88%	4.79%

Correlation

The correlation between AAPW and QYLD is 0.41, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.41
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 20, 2025	0.47

AAPW vs. QYLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AAPW	QYLD
Technology	19.8%	53.8%
Basic Materials	-	1.1%
Communication Services	-	15.8%
Consumer Cyclical	-	12.3%
Consumer Defensive	-	7.7%
Energy	-	0.6%
Financial Services	-	0.2%
Healthcare	-	4.2%
Industrials	-	2.8%
Real Estate	-	0.1%
Utilities	-	1.4%

Return for Risk

AAPW vs. QYLD — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

AAPW

AAPW Risk / Return Rank: 62
AAPW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
AAPW Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
AAPW Omega Ratio Rank: 62
AAPW Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
AAPW Martin Ratio Rank: 51

QYLD

QYLD Risk / Return Rank: 88
QYLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
QYLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
QYLD Omega Ratio Rank: 92
QYLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
QYLD Martin Ratio Rank: 94

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

AAPW vs. QYLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AAPL WeeklyPay™ ETF (AAPW) and Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	AAPW	QYLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.17	2.80	-0.63
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.01	3.92	-0.91
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.63	-0.25
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.45	4.84	-1.39
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.65	28.36	-19.71
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AAPW vs. QYLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AAPW Sharpe Ratio is 2.17, which is comparable to the QYLD Sharpe Ratio of 2.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AAPW and QYLD, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	AAPW	QYLD	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.17	2.80	-0.63
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.58	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.63	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.55	0.59	-0.04

Drawdowns

AAPW vs. QYLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AAPW drawdown since its inception was -36.28%, which is greater than QYLD's maximum drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AAPW and QYLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	AAPW	QYLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.28%	-24.75%	-11.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.36%	-4.97%	-12.39%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-19.06%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-24.61%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-24.75%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.85%	-0.06%	-1.79%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.18%	-3.84%	-7.34%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.91%	0.85%	+6.06%

Volatility

AAPW vs. QYLD - Volatility Comparison

AAPL WeeklyPay™ ETF (AAPW) has a higher volatility of 6.61% compared to Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD) at 1.85%. This indicates that AAPW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QYLD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AAPW	QYLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.61%	1.85%	+4.76%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.54%	7.12%	+12.42%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.56%	8.58%	+18.98%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	34.72%	14.70%	+20.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	34.72%	15.49%	+19.23%

AAPW vs. QYLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

AAPW has a 0.99% expense ratio, which is higher than QYLD's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

AAPW vs. QYLD - Dividend Comparison

AAPW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 31.37%, more than QYLD's 11.46% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
AAPW AAPL WeeklyPay™ ETF	31.37%	28.83%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QYLD Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF	11.46%	11.55%	12.50%	11.78%	13.75%	12.85%	11.16%	9.84%	12.44%	7.69%	9.15%	9.42%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AAPW and QYLD in my portfolio?

AAPW and QYLD have a correlation of 0.41, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AAPW or QYLD?

AAPW has higher volatility (6.61%) compared to QYLD (1.85%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AAPW dropped -36.28% vs QYLD's -24.75%.

Which ETF is better, AAPW or QYLD?

On 1-year performance, AAPW leads with 59.54% vs 23.93% for QYLD. On fees, QYLD is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, QYLD has been the lower-risk option at 1.85%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AAPW or QYLD?

Over the 1-year period, AAPW has performed better with a 59.54% return vs 23.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AAPW or QYLD?

QYLD is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for AAPW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AAPW or QYLD?

AAPW has the higher dividend yield at 31.37%, compared with 11.46% for QYLD.

What is the main difference between AAPW and QYLD?

AAPW is categorized as Derivative Income, while QYLD is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Roundhill and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.99% for AAPW and 0.60% for QYLD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QYLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.80 vs 2.17), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.