PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
AMZA vs. QYLD
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

AMZA vs. QYLD - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AMZA achieves a 22.22% return, which is significantly higher than QYLD's 7.88% return. Over the past 10 years, AMZA has underperformed QYLD with an annualized return of 4.86%, while QYLD has yielded a comparatively higher 9.80% annualized return.


AMZA

1D
0.39%
1M
-0.92%
YTD
22.22%
6M
20.41%
1Y
17.55%
3Y*
22.02%
5Y*
19.41%
10Y*
4.86%

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)

AMZA vs. QYLD - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
AMZA
InfraCap MLP ETF
22.22%0.17%30.90%23.35%33.20%51.22%-49.25%6.27%-26.78%-6.90%
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 AMZA and QYLD is -0.03, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.03

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.16

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.28

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.31

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 3, 2014

0.31

The correlation between AMZA and QYLD shifts across timeframes, from -0.03 (1 year) to 0.31 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

AMZA vs. QYLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
AMZA
QYLD

Energy

99.8%
0.6%

Utilities

0.2%
1.4%

Basic Materials

-

1.1%

Communication Services

-

15.8%

Consumer Cyclical

-

12.3%

Consumer Defensive

-

7.7%

Financial Services

-

0.2%

Healthcare

-

4.2%

Industrials

-

2.8%

Real Estate

-

0.1%

Technology

-

53.8%

Energy

AMZA
99.8%
QYLD
0.6%

Utilities

AMZA
0.2%
QYLD
1.4%

Basic Materials

AMZA

-

QYLD
1.1%

Communication Services

AMZA

-

QYLD
15.8%

Consumer Cyclical

AMZA

-

QYLD
12.3%

Consumer Defensive

AMZA

-

QYLD
7.7%

Financial Services

AMZA

-

QYLD
0.2%

Healthcare

AMZA

-

QYLD
4.2%

Industrials

AMZA

-

QYLD
2.8%

Real Estate

AMZA

-

QYLD
0.1%

Technology

AMZA

-

QYLD
53.8%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

AMZA vs. QYLD — Risk / Return Rank

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

AMZA
AMZA Risk / Return Rank: 2727
Overall Rank
AMZA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2727
Sharpe Ratio Rank
AMZA Sortino Ratio Rank: 2727
Sortino Ratio Rank
AMZA Omega Ratio Rank: 2525
Omega Ratio Rank
AMZA Calmar Ratio Rank: 2929
Calmar Ratio Rank
AMZA Martin Ratio Rank: 2626
Martin Ratio Rank

QYLD
QYLD Risk / Return Rank: 8888
Overall Rank
QYLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8484
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QYLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 8585
Sortino Ratio Rank
QYLD Omega Ratio Rank: 9292
Omega Ratio Rank
QYLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 8686
Calmar Ratio Rank
QYLD Martin Ratio Rank: 9494
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

AMZA vs. QYLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for InfraCap MLP ETF (AMZA) 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.


AMZAQYLDDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.80

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-2.44

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.17

1.63

-0.46

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.45

4.84

-3.39

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.65

28.36

-24.71

AMZA vs. QYLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AMZA Sharpe Ratio is 1.00, which is lower than the QYLD Sharpe Ratio of 2.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AMZA 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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


AMZAQYLDDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.00

2.80

-1.80

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.76

0.58

+0.18

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.13

0.63

-0.50

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

-0.02

0.59

-0.61

Drawdowns

AMZA vs. QYLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AMZA drawdown since its inception was -91.46%, which is greater than QYLD's maximum drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AMZA and QYLD.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


AMZAQYLDDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-91.46%

-24.75%

-66.71%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.16%

-4.97%

-7.19%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-18.56%

-19.06%

+0.50%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.15%

-24.61%

-0.54%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-86.84%

-24.75%

-62.09%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-10.19%

-0.06%

-10.13%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-45.02%

-3.84%

-41.18%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.82%

0.85%

+3.97%

Volatility

AMZA vs. QYLD - Volatility Comparison

InfraCap MLP ETF (AMZA) has a higher volatility of 5.80% compared to Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD) at 1.85%. This indicates that AMZA'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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


AMZAQYLDDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.80%

1.85%

+3.95%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.40%

7.12%

+6.28%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.72%

8.58%

+9.14%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

25.84%

14.70%

+11.14%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

37.25%

15.49%

+21.76%

AMZA vs. QYLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

AMZA has a 2.01% expense ratio, which is higher than QYLD's 0.60% expense ratio.


Dividends

AMZA vs. QYLD - Dividend Comparison

AMZA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.02%, less than QYLD's 11.46% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
AMZA
InfraCap MLP ETF
8.02%8.81%7.29%9.40%7.65%10.24%22.13%19.47%34.46%24.16%18.36%18.21%
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


AMZA and QYLD have a correlation of -0.03, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

AMZA has higher volatility (5.80%) compared to QYLD (1.85%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AMZA dropped -91.46% vs QYLD's -24.75%.

On 10-year performance, QYLD leads with 9.80% vs 4.86% for AMZA. 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.

Over the 10-year period, QYLD has performed better with a 9.80% return vs 4.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

QYLD is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 2.01% for AMZA.

QYLD has the higher dividend yield at 11.46%, compared with 8.02% for AMZA.

AMZA is categorized as MLPs, while QYLD is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Virtus Investment Partners and Global X. Their fees differ too: 2.01% for AMZA and 0.60% for QYLD.

QYLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.80 vs 1.00), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for AMZA and QYLD

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer