BDVG vs. QYLD

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BDVG (iMGP Berkshire Dividend Growth ETF) and QYLD (Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BDVG is a Large Cap Value Equities fund actively managed by iMGP, while QYLD is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the CBOE NASDAQ-100 Buy Write V2. BDVG is actively managed, while QYLD is passively managed. Over the past year, BDVG returned 22.84% vs 22.55% for QYLD. At a 0.47 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BDVG charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for QYLD.

Performance

BDVG vs. QYLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iMGP Berkshire Dividend Growth ETF (BDVG) 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, BDVG achieves a 12.77% return, which is significantly higher than QYLD's 7.89% return.

BDVG

• 1D: 0.56%
• 1M: 2.15%
• YTD: 12.77%
• 6M: 12.09%
• 1Y: 22.84%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QYLD

• 1D: -1.97%
• 1M: 1.41%
• YTD: 7.89%
• 6M: 7.59%
• 1Y: 22.55%
• 3Y*: 13.99%
• 5Y*: 8.26%
• 10Y*: 9.99%

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

BDVG vs. QYLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BDVG iMGP Berkshire Dividend Growth ETF	12.77%	13.81%	11.75%	3.42%
QYLD Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF	7.89%	9.28%	19.35%	4.70%

Correlation

The correlation between BDVG 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 Jun 30, 2023	0.47

BDVG vs. QYLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BDVG	QYLD
Industrials	18.6%	2.6%
Technology	18.2%	58.7%
Financial Services	17.0%	0.2%
Consumer Defensive	11.6%	6.4%
Energy	10.5%	0.5%
Healthcare	9.8%	3.7%
Consumer Cyclical	6.2%	11.4%
Basic Materials	3.7%	1.0%
Utilities	3.1%	1.2%
Real Estate	1.3%	0.1%
Communication Services	0.6%	14.3%

Return for Risk

BDVG vs. QYLD — Risk / Return Rank

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

BDVG

BDVG Risk / Return Rank: 76
BDVG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
BDVG Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
BDVG Omega Ratio Rank: 76
BDVG Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
BDVG Martin Ratio Rank: 74

QYLD

QYLD Risk / Return Rank: 84
QYLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
QYLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
QYLD Omega Ratio Rank: 87
QYLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
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.

BDVG vs. QYLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iMGP Berkshire Dividend Growth ETF (BDVG) 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	BDVG	QYLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.28	2.34	-0.06
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.31	3.28	+0.04
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.52	-0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.43	4.56	-1.13
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.03	25.38	-12.35

BDVG vs. QYLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BDVG Sharpe Ratio is 2.28, which is comparable to the QYLD Sharpe Ratio of 2.34. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BDVG 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.

Drawdowns

BDVG vs. QYLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BDVG drawdown since its inception was -14.46%, smaller than the maximum QYLD drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BDVG and QYLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	BDVG	QYLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.46%	-24.75%	+10.29%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.70%	-4.97%	-1.73%
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	-0.95%	-2.10%	+1.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.32%	-3.82%	+1.50%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.76%	0.89%	+0.87%

Volatility

BDVG vs. QYLD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iMGP Berkshire Dividend Growth ETF (BDVG) is 3.78%, while Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD) has a volatility of 4.78%. This indicates that BDVG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QYLD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BDVG	QYLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.78%	4.78%	-1.00%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.77%	8.50%	-0.73%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.08%	9.70%	+0.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.95%	14.84%	-2.89%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.95%	15.56%	-3.61%

BDVG vs. QYLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

BDVG has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is lower than QYLD's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

BDVG vs. QYLD - Dividend Comparison

BDVG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.52%, less than QYLD's 11.68% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BDVG iMGP Berkshire Dividend Growth ETF	1.52%	1.75%	1.69%	0.95%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QYLD Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF	11.68%	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 BDVG and QYLD in my portfolio?

BDVG 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, BDVG or QYLD?

QYLD has higher volatility (4.78%) compared to BDVG (3.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BDVG dropped -14.46% vs QYLD's -24.75%.

Which ETF is better, BDVG or QYLD?

On 1-year performance, BDVG leads with 22.84% vs 22.55% for QYLD. On fees, BDVG is cheaper at 0.55% per year. On volatility, BDVG has been the lower-risk option at 3.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BDVG or QYLD?

Over the 1-year period, BDVG has performed better with a 22.84% return vs 22.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BDVG or QYLD?

BDVG is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for QYLD.

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

QYLD has the higher dividend yield at 11.68%, compared with 1.52% for BDVG.

What is the main difference between BDVG and QYLD?

BDVG is categorized as Large Cap Value Equities, while QYLD is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: iMGP and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for BDVG and 0.60% for QYLD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QYLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.34 vs 2.28), 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.