PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CBIL.TO vs. QQCL.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CBIL.TO vs. QQCL.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CBIL.TO (Global X 0-3 Month T-Bill ETF) and QQCL.TO (Global X Enhanced NASDAQ-100 Covered Call ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CBIL.TO is a Canadian Government Bonds fund actively managed by Global X, while QQCL.TO is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by Global X. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CBIL.TO returned 2.34% vs 43.99% for QQCL.TO. At a 0.03 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CBIL.TO charges 0.10%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for QQCL.TO.

Performance

CBIL.TO vs. QQCL.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Global X 0-3 Month T-Bill ETF (CBIL.TO) and Global X Enhanced NASDAQ-100 Covered Call ETF (QQCL.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CBIL.TO achieves a 0.85% return, which is significantly lower than QQCL.TO's 20.85% return.

CBIL.TO

1D
0.02%
1M
0.20%
YTD
0.85%
6M
1.08%
1Y
2.34%
3Y*
3.63%
5Y*
—
10Y*
—

QQCL.TO

1D
0.47%
1M
12.39%
YTD
20.85%
6M
17.94%
1Y
43.99%
3Y*
—
5Y*
—
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CBIL.TO vs. QQCL.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023
CBIL.TO
Global X 0-3 Month T-Bill ETF		0.85%2.68%4.47%1.16%
QQCL.TO
Global X Enhanced NASDAQ-100 Covered Call ETF		20.85%13.10%41.38%5.48%

Correlation

The correlation between CBIL.TO and QQCL.TO is 0.02, 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

0.02

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 12, 2023

0.03

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

Global X 0-3 Month T-Bill ETF

Global X Enhanced NASDAQ-100 Covered Call ETF

Often compared with CBIL.TO:
CBIL.TO vs. CASH.TOCBIL.TO vs. ZMMK.TOCBIL.TO vs. TBILCBIL.TO vs. HSAV.TOCBIL.TO vs. CMR.TOCBIL.TO vs. ZST.TOCBIL.TO vs. PSA.TO
Often compared with QQCL.TO:
QQCL.TO vs. QQC.TOQQCL.TO vs. QQCC.TOQQCL.TO vs. HYLDQQCL.TO vs. QMAX.TOQQCL.TO vs. QYLDQQCL.TO vs. XEQT.TOQQCL.TO vs. QQQY.TO

Return for Risk

CBIL.TO vs. QQCL.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
CBIL.TO
CBIL.TO Risk / Return Rank: 9999
Overall Rank
CBIL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9999
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CBIL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 100100
Sortino Ratio Rank
CBIL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 9999
Omega Ratio Rank
CBIL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 100100
Calmar Ratio Rank
CBIL.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 100100
Martin Ratio Rank
QQCL.TO
QQCL.TO Risk / Return Rank: 8181
Overall Rank
QQCL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8484
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QQCL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 8080
Sortino Ratio Rank
QQCL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 8282
Omega Ratio Rank
QQCL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7979
Calmar Ratio Rank
QQCL.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 7878
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.

CBIL.TO vs. QQCL.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X 0-3 Month T-Bill ETF (CBIL.TO) and Global X Enhanced NASDAQ-100 Covered Call ETF (QQCL.TO). 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.

CBIL.TOQQCL.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
9.47
2.81

+6.66

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
23.59
3.65

+19.94

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

5.38

1.51

+3.88

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

58.74

4.14

+54.60

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

339.60

15.49

+324.12

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CBIL.TO vs. QQCL.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CBIL.TO Sharpe Ratio is 9.47, which is higher than the QQCL.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.81. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CBIL.TO and QQCL.TO, 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

CBIL.TOQQCL.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

9.47

2.81

+6.66

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

11.64

1.52

+10.11

Drawdowns

CBIL.TO vs. QQCL.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CBIL.TO drawdown since its inception was -0.06%, smaller than the maximum QQCL.TO drawdown of -25.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CBIL.TO and QQCL.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CBIL.TOQQCL.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-0.06%

-25.63%

+25.57%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-0.04%

-10.68%

+10.64%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-0.06%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-0.00%

-3.32%

+3.32%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.01%

2.85%

-2.84%

Volatility

CBIL.TO vs. QQCL.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X 0-3 Month T-Bill ETF (CBIL.TO) is 0.08%, while Global X Enhanced NASDAQ-100 Covered Call ETF (QQCL.TO) has a volatility of 4.30%. This indicates that CBIL.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QQCL.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CBIL.TOQQCL.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.08%

4.30%

-4.22%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

0.19%

12.58%

-12.39%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.25%

15.74%

-15.49%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

0.31%

20.38%

-20.07%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

0.31%

20.38%

-20.07%

CBIL.TO vs. QQCL.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

CBIL.TO has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is lower than QQCL.TO's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

CBIL.TO vs. QQCL.TO - Dividend Comparison

CBIL.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.29%, less than QQCL.TO's 13.15% yield.

PositionTTM202520242023
CBIL.TO
Global X 0-3 Month T-Bill ETF		2.29%2.59%4.38%3.39%
QQCL.TO
Global X Enhanced NASDAQ-100 Covered Call ETF		13.15%14.54%11.87%3.68%

Frequently Asked Questions

CBIL.TO and QQCL.TO have a correlation of 0.02, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, CBIL.TO is cheaper at 0.10% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CBIL.TO is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for QQCL.TO.

CBIL.TO is categorized as Canadian Government Bonds, while QQCL.TO is Nasdaq-100. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for CBIL.TO and 0.85% for QQCL.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CBIL.TO and QQCL.TO

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