CEFA vs. QQQI

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CEFA (Global X S&P Catholic Values Developed ex-U.S. ETF) and QQQI (NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CEFA is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund tracking the S&P Developed ex-U.S. Catholic Values Index, while QQQI is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by Neos. CEFA is passively managed, while QQQI is actively managed. Over the past year, CEFA returned 20.44% vs 30.41% for QQQI. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CEFA charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.68%/yr for QQQI.

Performance

CEFA vs. QQQI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X S&P Catholic Values Developed ex-U.S. ETF (CEFA) and NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF (QQQI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CEFA achieves a 7.81% return, which is significantly lower than QQQI's 13.43% return.

CEFA

• 1D: -0.77%
• 1M: 3.62%
• YTD: 7.81%
• 6M: 9.59%
• 1Y: 20.44%
• 3Y*: 15.15%
• 5Y*: 6.64%
• 10Y*: —

QQQI

• 1D: -0.17%
• 1M: 6.91%
• YTD: 13.43%
• 6M: 12.92%
• 1Y: 30.41%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CEFA vs. QQQI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CEFA Global X S&P Catholic Values Developed ex-U.S. ETF	7.81%	26.46%	5.17%
QQQI NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF	13.43%	18.62%	19.83%

Correlation

The correlation between CEFA and QQQI is 0.69, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.69
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 31, 2024	0.62

The correlation between CEFA and QQQI has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.62 to 0.69 - a consistent structural relationship.

CEFA vs. QQQI - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CEFA	QQQI
Financial Services	26.1%	0.3%
Industrials	19.2%	3.3%
Technology	10.7%	53.3%
Healthcare	10.6%	4.3%
Consumer Cyclical	8.7%	12.1%
Consumer Defensive	6.7%	7.7%
Basic Materials	5.7%	1.2%
Energy	4.4%	0.7%
Communication Services	3.6%	15.7%
Utilities	3.2%	1.5%
Real Estate	1.3%	0.1%

Return for Risk

CEFA vs. QQQI — Risk / Return Rank

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

CEFA

CEFA Risk / Return Rank: 38
CEFA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
CEFA Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
CEFA Omega Ratio Rank: 37
CEFA Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
CEFA Martin Ratio Rank: 41

QQQI

QQQI Risk / Return Rank: 68
QQQI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
QQQI Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
QQQI Omega Ratio Rank: 70
QQQI Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
QQQI Martin Ratio Rank: 74

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.

CEFA vs. QQQI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X S&P Catholic Values Developed ex-U.S. ETF (CEFA) and NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF (QQQI). 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.

	CEFA	QQQI	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.34	2.35	-1.02
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.94	3.12	-1.17
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.43	-0.19
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.78	3.18	-1.40
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	6.54	14.27	-7.74
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CEFA vs. QQQI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CEFA Sharpe Ratio is 1.34, which is lower than the QQQI Sharpe Ratio of 2.35. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CEFA and QQQI, 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

	CEFA	QQQI	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.34	2.35	-1.02
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.38	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.63	1.34	-0.70

Drawdowns

CEFA vs. QQQI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CEFA drawdown since its inception was -31.97%, which is greater than QQQI's maximum drawdown of -20.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEFA and QQQI.

Drawdown Indicators

	CEFA	QQQI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.97%	-20.00%	-11.97%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.54%	-9.61%	-1.93%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.45%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-31.97%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.47%	-0.17%	-1.30%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.05%	-2.20%	-4.85%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.13%	2.14%	+0.99%

Volatility

CEFA vs. QQQI - Volatility Comparison

Global X S&P Catholic Values Developed ex-U.S. ETF (CEFA) has a higher volatility of 5.01% compared to NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF (QQQI) at 2.68%. This indicates that CEFA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QQQI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CEFA	QQQI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.01%	2.68%	+2.33%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.77%	9.85%	+2.92%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.33%	12.98%	+2.35%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.61%	17.07%	+0.54%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.21%	17.07%	+0.14%

CEFA vs. QQQI - Expense Ratio Comparison

CEFA has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than QQQI's 0.68% expense ratio.

Dividends

CEFA vs. QQQI - Dividend Comparison

CEFA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.65%, less than QQQI's 13.19% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
CEFA Global X S&P Catholic Values Developed ex-U.S. ETF	2.65%	2.86%	3.26%	2.35%	2.35%	3.49%	0.84%
QQQI NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF	13.19%	13.82%	12.85%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CEFA and QQQI in my portfolio?

CEFA and QQQI have a correlation of 0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CEFA or QQQI?

CEFA has higher volatility (5.01%) compared to QQQI (2.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CEFA dropped -31.97% vs QQQI's -20.00%.

Which ETF is better, CEFA or QQQI?

On 1-year performance, QQQI leads with 30.41% vs 20.44% for CEFA. On fees, CEFA is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, QQQI has been the lower-risk option at 2.68%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CEFA or QQQI?

Over the 1-year period, QQQI has performed better with a 30.41% return vs 20.44%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CEFA or QQQI?

CEFA is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for QQQI.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CEFA or QQQI?

QQQI has the higher dividend yield at 13.19%, compared with 2.65% for CEFA.

What is the main difference between CEFA and QQQI?

CEFA is categorized as Foreign Large Cap Equities, while QQQI is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Global X and Neos. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for CEFA and 0.68% for QQQI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QQQI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.35 vs 1.34), 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.