PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
COSW vs. QYLD
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

COSW vs. QYLD

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

COSW (Roundhill COST WeeklyPay ETF) and QYLD (Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - COSW is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by Roundhill, while QYLD is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the CBOE NASDAQ-100 Buy Write V2. COSW is actively managed, while QYLD is passively managed. At a correlation of -0.05, they often move in opposite directions. COSW charges 0.99%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for QYLD.

Performance

COSW vs. QYLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Roundhill COST WeeklyPay ETF (COSW) and Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, COSW achieves a 11.78% return, which is significantly higher than QYLD's 7.65% return.

COSW

1D
0.24%
1M
-8.28%
YTD
11.78%
6M
10.24%
1Y
—
3Y*
—
5Y*
—
10Y*
—

QYLD

1D
-0.22%
1M
1.18%
YTD
7.65%
6M
7.29%
1Y
21.61%
3Y*
13.90%
5Y*
8.17%
10Y*
9.97%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

COSW vs. QYLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)2025
COSW
Roundhill COST WeeklyPay ETF		11.78%-10.48%
QYLD
Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF		7.65%4.76%

Correlation

The correlation between COSW and QYLD is -0.05, 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 (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 23, 2025

-0.05

COSW vs. QYLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
COSW
QYLD

Consumer Defensive

8.4%
6.4%

Basic Materials

-

1.0%

Communication Services

-

14.3%

Consumer Cyclical

-

11.4%

Energy

-

0.5%

Financial Services

-

0.2%

Healthcare

-

3.7%

Industrials

-

2.6%

Real Estate

-

0.1%

Technology

-

58.7%

Utilities

-

1.2%

Consumer Defensive

COSW
8.4%
QYLD
6.4%

Basic Materials

COSW

-

QYLD
1.0%

Communication Services

COSW

-

QYLD
14.3%

Consumer Cyclical

COSW

-

QYLD
11.4%

Energy

COSW

-

QYLD
0.5%

Financial Services

COSW

-

QYLD
0.2%

Healthcare

COSW

-

QYLD
3.7%

Industrials

COSW

-

QYLD
2.6%

Real Estate

COSW

-

QYLD
0.1%

Technology

COSW

-

QYLD
58.7%

Utilities

COSW

-

QYLD
1.2%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

Roundhill COST WeeklyPay ETF

Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF

Often compared with COSW:
COSW vs. WMTICOSW vs. COSTCOSW vs. ROCYCOSW vs. DRKYCOSW vs. SPYICOSW vs. MRNYCOSW vs. TPRY
Often compared with QYLD:
QYLD vs. JEPQQYLD vs. JEPIQYLD vs. QQQQYLD vs. XYLDQYLD vs. RYLDQYLD vs. SCHDQYLD vs. QYLG

Return for Risk

COSW vs. QYLD — Risk / Return Rank

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

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

QYLD
QYLD Risk / Return Rank: 8585
Overall Rank
QYLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7878
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QYLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 7979
Sortino Ratio Rank
QYLD Omega Ratio Rank: 8989
Omega Ratio Rank
QYLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 8686
Calmar Ratio Rank
QYLD Martin Ratio Rank: 9494
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.

COSW vs. QYLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Roundhill COST WeeklyPay ETF (COSW) 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.

COSWQYLDDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

—

2.24

—

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

—

3.15

—

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

—

1.50

—

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

—

4.37

—

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

—

24.01

—

COSW vs. QYLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

COSW vs. QYLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum COSW drawdown since its inception was -16.24%, smaller than the maximum QYLD drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for COSW and QYLD.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

COSWQYLDDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-16.24%

-24.75%

+8.51%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

—

-4.97%

—

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

-14.89%

-2.32%

-12.57%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.94%

-3.82%

-1.12%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

—

0.90%

—

Volatility

COSW vs. QYLD - Volatility Comparison

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

COSWQYLDDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

—

4.79%

—

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

—

8.45%

—

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

25.46%

9.69%

+15.77%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

25.46%

14.84%

+10.62%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

25.46%

15.55%

+9.91%

COSW vs. QYLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

COSW has a 0.99% expense ratio, which is higher than QYLD's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

COSW vs. QYLD - Dividend Comparison

COSW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 19.61%, more than QYLD's 11.71% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
COSW
Roundhill COST WeeklyPay ETF		19.61%4.96%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		11.71%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

COSW and QYLD have a correlation of -0.05, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, QYLD is cheaper at 0.60% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

QYLD is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for COSW.

COSW has the higher dividend yield at 19.61%, compared with 11.71% for QYLD.

COSW is categorized as Derivative Income, while QYLD is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Roundhill and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.99% for COSW and 0.60% for QYLD.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for COSW and QYLD

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