BINC vs. QYLD

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

BINC (iShares Flexible Income Active ETF) and QYLD (Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BINC is a Multisector Bonds fund actively managed by iShares, while QYLD is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the CBOE NASDAQ-100 Buy Write V2. BINC is actively managed, while QYLD is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, BINC returned 6.84%/yr vs 13.42%/yr for QYLD. At a 0.35 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BINC charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for QYLD.

Performance

BINC vs. QYLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Flexible Income Active ETF (BINC) 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, BINC achieves a 0.61% return, which is significantly lower than QYLD's 7.05% return.

BINC

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: -0.31%
• YTD: 0.61%
• 6M: 1.20%
• 1Y: 5.51%
• 3Y*: 6.84%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QYLD

• 1D: 1.07%
• 1M: 0.23%
• YTD: 7.05%
• 6M: 8.87%
• 1Y: 22.45%
• 3Y*: 13.42%
• 5Y*: 8.24%
• 10Y*: 9.77%

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

BINC vs. QYLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BINC iShares Flexible Income Active ETF	0.61%	7.57%	5.76%	7.12%
QYLD Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF	7.05%	9.28%	19.35%	6.54%

Correlation

The correlation between BINC and QYLD is 0.44, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.44
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.35
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 23, 2023	0.35

BINC vs. QYLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BINC	QYLD
Financial Services	0.1%	0.2%
Basic Materials	0.0%	1.1%
Energy	0.0%	0.6%
Industrials	0.0%	2.8%
Consumer Cyclical	-	12.3%
Consumer Defensive	-	7.7%
Technology	-	53.8%
Utilities	-	1.4%
Real Estate	-0.0%	0.1%
Healthcare	-0.0%	4.2%
Communication Services	-0.0%	15.8%

Return for Risk

BINC vs. QYLD — Risk / Return Rank

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

BINC

BINC Risk / Return Rank: 71
BINC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
BINC Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
BINC Omega Ratio Rank: 86
BINC Calmar Ratio Rank: 46
BINC Martin Ratio Rank: 52

QYLD

QYLD Risk / Return Rank: 89
QYLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
QYLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
QYLD Omega Ratio Rank: 92
QYLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
QYLD Martin Ratio Rank: 95

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.

BINC vs. QYLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Flexible Income Active ETF (BINC) 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.

	BINC	QYLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.43	2.56	-0.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.52	3.53	-0.01
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.57	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.06	4.54	-2.48
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.08	26.31	-18.24
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BINC vs. QYLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BINC Sharpe Ratio is 2.43, which is comparable to the QYLD Sharpe Ratio of 2.56. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BINC 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

	BINC	QYLD	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.43	2.56	-0.13
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.56	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.63	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.32	0.59	+1.74

Drawdowns

BINC vs. QYLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BINC drawdown since its inception was -2.69%, smaller than the maximum QYLD drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BINC and QYLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	BINC	QYLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-2.69%	-24.75%	+22.06%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.69%	-4.97%	+2.28%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-2.69%	-19.06%	+16.37%
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	-0.77%	-0.83%	+0.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.36%	-3.83%	+3.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.68%	0.86%	-0.18%

Volatility

BINC vs. QYLD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Flexible Income Active ETF (BINC) is 0.70%, while Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD) has a volatility of 2.86%. This indicates that BINC 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

	BINC	QYLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.70%	2.86%	-2.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.85%	7.44%	-5.59%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.28%	8.84%	-6.56%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.00%	14.73%	-11.73%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.00%	15.51%	-12.51%

BINC vs. QYLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

BINC has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than QYLD's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

BINC vs. QYLD - Dividend Comparison

BINC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.88%, less than QYLD's 11.55% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BINC iShares Flexible Income Active ETF	5.88%	5.86%	6.14%	3.13%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QYLD Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF	11.55%	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 BINC and QYLD in my portfolio?

BINC and QYLD have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BINC or QYLD?

QYLD has higher volatility (2.86%) compared to BINC (0.70%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BINC dropped -2.69% vs QYLD's -24.75%.

Which ETF is better, BINC or QYLD?

On 3-year performance, QYLD leads with 13.42% vs 6.84% for BINC. On fees, BINC is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, BINC has been the lower-risk option at 0.70%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BINC or QYLD?

Over the 3-year period, QYLD has performed better with a 13.42% return vs 6.84%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BINC or QYLD?

BINC is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for QYLD.

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

QYLD has the higher dividend yield at 11.55%, compared with 5.88% for BINC.

What is the main difference between BINC and QYLD?

BINC is categorized as Multisector Bonds, while QYLD is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for BINC and 0.60% for QYLD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QYLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.56 vs 2.43), 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.