AGNG vs. QYLD

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

AGNG (Global X Aging Population ETF) and QYLD (Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AGNG is a Health & Biotech Equities fund tracking the Indxx Aging Population Thematic Index, while QYLD is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the CBOE NASDAQ-100 Buy Write V2. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, AGNG returned 8.91%/yr vs 9.81%/yr for QYLD. At a 0.50 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. AGNG charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for QYLD.

Performance

AGNG vs. QYLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Aging Population ETF (AGNG) 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, AGNG achieves a -2.82% return, which is significantly lower than QYLD's 7.88% return. Over the past 10 years, AGNG has underperformed QYLD with an annualized return of 8.91%, while QYLD has yielded a comparatively higher 9.81% annualized return.

AGNG

• 1D: 2.07%
• 1M: -0.03%
• YTD: -2.82%
• 6M: -3.18%
• 1Y: 11.38%
• 3Y*: 8.98%
• 5Y*: 4.39%
• 10Y*: 8.91%

QYLD

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 1.40%
• YTD: 7.88%
• 6M: 9.91%
• 1Y: 23.70%
• 3Y*: 13.76%
• 5Y*: 8.43%
• 10Y*: 9.81%

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

AGNG vs. QYLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
AGNG Global X Aging Population ETF	-2.82%	20.01%	7.03%	9.65%	-8.61%	3.91%	18.96%	25.24%	-1.45%	28.17%
QYLD Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF	7.88%	9.28%	19.35%	22.77%	-19.08%	10.41%	8.72%	22.69%	-3.07%	18.79%

Correlation

The correlation between AGNG and QYLD is 0.37, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.37
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.41
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.55
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.50
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 11, 2016	0.50

The correlation between AGNG and QYLD shifts across timeframes, from 0.37 (1 year) to 0.55 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

AGNG vs. QYLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AGNG	QYLD
Healthcare	90.8%	4.2%
Real Estate	9.2%	0.1%
Basic Materials	-	1.1%
Communication Services	-	15.8%
Consumer Cyclical	-	12.3%
Consumer Defensive	-	7.7%
Energy	-	0.6%
Financial Services	-	0.2%
Industrials	-	2.8%
Technology	-	53.8%
Utilities	-	1.4%

Return for Risk

AGNG vs. QYLD — Risk / Return Rank

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

AGNG

AGNG Risk / Return Rank: 23
AGNG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 24
AGNG Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
AGNG Omega Ratio Rank: 24
AGNG Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
AGNG Martin Ratio Rank: 22

QYLD

QYLD Risk / Return Rank: 89
QYLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
QYLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
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.

AGNG vs. QYLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Aging Population ETF (AGNG) 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.

	AGNG	QYLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.83	2.78	-1.95
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.28	3.89	-2.61
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	1.63	-0.47
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.00	4.79	-3.79
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.69	28.10	-25.41
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AGNG vs. QYLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AGNG Sharpe Ratio is 0.83, which is lower than the QYLD Sharpe Ratio of 2.78. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AGNG 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

	AGNG	QYLD	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.83	2.78	-1.95
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.29	0.58	-0.29
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.52	0.63	-0.11
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.54	0.59	-0.05

Drawdowns

AGNG vs. QYLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AGNG drawdown since its inception was -30.58%, which is greater than QYLD's maximum drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AGNG and QYLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	AGNG	QYLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-30.58%	-24.75%	-5.83%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.45%	-4.97%	-6.48%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.48%	-19.06%	+4.58%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.66%	-24.61%	-1.05%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-30.58%	-24.75%	-5.83%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.25%	-0.06%	-9.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.95%	-3.84%	-2.11%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.24%	0.85%	+3.39%

Volatility

AGNG vs. QYLD - Volatility Comparison

Global X Aging Population ETF (AGNG) has a higher volatility of 4.43% compared to Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD) at 1.84%. This indicates that AGNG'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

	AGNG	QYLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.43%	1.84%	+2.59%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.21%	7.12%	+3.09%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.77%	8.57%	+5.20%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.24%	14.70%	+0.54%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.14%	15.49%	+1.65%

AGNG vs. QYLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

AGNG has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than QYLD's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

AGNG vs. QYLD - Dividend Comparison

AGNG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.90%, less than QYLD's 11.46% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
AGNG Global X Aging Population ETF	0.90%	0.88%	0.83%	0.96%	0.49%	0.72%	0.36%	0.83%	1.00%	1.04%	0.45%	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 AGNG and QYLD in my portfolio?

AGNG and QYLD have a correlation of 0.37, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AGNG or QYLD?

AGNG has higher volatility (4.43%) compared to QYLD (1.84%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AGNG dropped -30.58% vs QYLD's -24.75%.

Which ETF is better, AGNG or QYLD?

On 10-year performance, QYLD leads with 9.81% vs 8.91% for AGNG. On fees, AGNG is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, QYLD has been the lower-risk option at 1.84%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AGNG or QYLD?

Over the 10-year period, QYLD has performed better with a 9.81% return vs 8.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AGNG or QYLD?

AGNG is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for QYLD.

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

QYLD has the higher dividend yield at 11.46%, compared with 0.90% for AGNG.

What is the main difference between AGNG and QYLD?

AGNG is categorized as Health & Biotech Equities, while QYLD is Nasdaq-100. AGNG tracks Indxx Aging Population Thematic Index, while QYLD tracks CBOE NASDAQ-100 Buy Write V2. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for AGNG and 0.60% for QYLD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QYLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.78 vs 0.83), 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.