BUFQ vs. QYLD

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BUFQ (FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF) and QYLD (Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF) are both Nasdaq-100 funds - BUFQ tracks the NASDAQ 100 Index - USD while QYLD tracks the CBOE NASDAQ-100 Buy Write V2. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, BUFQ returned 16.00%/yr vs 13.99%/yr for QYLD. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BUFQ charges 1.10%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for QYLD.

Performance

BUFQ vs. QYLD - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with BUFQ having a 7.95% return and QYLD slightly lower at 7.89%.

BUFQ

• 1D: -1.33%
• 1M: -0.77%
• YTD: 7.95%
• 6M: 6.55%
• 1Y: 19.01%
• 3Y*: 16.00%
• 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)

BUFQ vs. QYLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
BUFQ FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF	7.95%	14.03%	16.41%	35.51%	0.73%
QYLD Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF	7.89%	9.28%	19.35%	22.77%	-3.69%

Correlation

The correlation between BUFQ and QYLD is 0.85, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.85
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 16, 2022	0.87

The correlation between BUFQ and QYLD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

BUFQ vs. QYLD — Risk / Return Rank

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

BUFQ

BUFQ Risk / Return Rank: 79
BUFQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
BUFQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
BUFQ Omega Ratio Rank: 81
BUFQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
BUFQ Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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.

BUFQ vs. QYLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF (BUFQ) 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.

	BUFQ	QYLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.27	2.34	-0.07
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.32	3.28	+0.04
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.52	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.54	4.56	-1.02
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.65	25.38	-7.73

BUFQ vs. QYLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BUFQ Sharpe Ratio is 2.27, which is comparable to the QYLD Sharpe Ratio of 2.34. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BUFQ 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

BUFQ vs. QYLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BUFQ drawdown since its inception was -15.74%, smaller than the maximum QYLD drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUFQ and QYLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	BUFQ	QYLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.74%	-24.75%	+9.01%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.39%	-4.97%	-0.42%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.74%	-19.06%	+3.32%
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	-1.53%	-2.10%	+0.57%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.29%	-3.82%	+1.53%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.08%	0.89%	+0.19%

Volatility

BUFQ vs. QYLD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF (BUFQ) is 2.61%, while Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD) has a volatility of 4.78%. This indicates that BUFQ 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

	BUFQ	QYLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.61%	4.78%	-2.17%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.77%	8.50%	-1.73%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.45%	9.70%	-1.25%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.31%	14.84%	-1.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.31%	15.56%	-2.25%

BUFQ vs. QYLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

BUFQ has a 1.10% expense ratio, which is higher than QYLD's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

BUFQ vs. QYLD - Dividend Comparison

BUFQ has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QYLD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 11.68%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BUFQ FT Vest Laddered Nasdaq Buffer ETF	0.00%	0.00%	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	11.68%	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 BUFQ and QYLD in my portfolio?

BUFQ and QYLD have a correlation of 0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BUFQ or QYLD?

QYLD has higher volatility (4.78%) compared to BUFQ (2.61%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BUFQ dropped -15.74% vs QYLD's -24.75%.

Which ETF is better, BUFQ or QYLD?

On 3-year performance, BUFQ leads with 16.00% vs 13.99% for QYLD. On fees, QYLD is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, BUFQ has been the lower-risk option at 2.61%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BUFQ or QYLD?

Over the 3-year period, BUFQ has performed better with a 16.00% return vs 13.99%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BUFQ or QYLD?

QYLD is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 1.10% for BUFQ.

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

QYLD has the higher dividend yield at 11.68%, compared with 0.00% for BUFQ.

What is the main difference between BUFQ and QYLD?

BUFQ tracks NASDAQ 100 Index - USD, while QYLD tracks CBOE NASDAQ-100 Buy Write V2. They also come from different issuers: FT Vest and Global X. Their fees differ too: 1.10% for BUFQ and 0.60% for QYLD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QYLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.34 vs 2.27), 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.