CRSH vs. QYLD

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

CRSH (YieldMax Short TSLA Option Income Strategy ETF) and QYLD (Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CRSH is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by YieldMax, while QYLD is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the CBOE NASDAQ-100 Buy Write V2. CRSH is actively managed, while QYLD is passively managed. Over the past year, CRSH returned -12.42% vs 22.07% for QYLD. At a correlation of -0.52, they often move in opposite directions. CRSH charges 0.99%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for QYLD.

Performance

CRSH vs. QYLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in YieldMax Short TSLA Option Income Strategy ETF (CRSH) 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, CRSH achieves a 12.03% return, which is significantly higher than QYLD's 8.25% return.

CRSH

• 1D: -0.38%
• 1M: 10.73%
• YTD: 12.03%
• 6M: 19.19%
• 1Y: -12.42%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QYLD

• 1D: 0.56%
• 1M: 1.12%
• YTD: 8.25%
• 6M: 7.89%
• 1Y: 22.07%
• 3Y*: 14.40%
• 5Y*: 8.29%
• 10Y*: 10.21%

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

CRSH vs. QYLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CRSH YieldMax Short TSLA Option Income Strategy ETF	12.03%	-13.40%	-52.42%
QYLD Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF	8.25%	9.28%	14.33%

Correlation

The correlation between CRSH and QYLD is -0.53, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.53
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 2, 2024	-0.52

The correlation between CRSH and QYLD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from -0.53 to -0.52 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CRSH vs. QYLD — Risk / Return Rank

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

CRSH

CRSH Risk / Return Rank: 6
CRSH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6
CRSH Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
CRSH Omega Ratio Rank: 6
CRSH Calmar Ratio Rank: 6
CRSH Martin Ratio Rank: 7

QYLD

QYLD Risk / Return Rank: 88
QYLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
QYLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
QYLD Omega Ratio Rank: 91
QYLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
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.

CRSH vs. QYLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for YieldMax Short TSLA Option Income Strategy ETF (CRSH) 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.

	CRSH	QYLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.35	2.29	-2.64
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.28	3.21	-3.50
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.97	1.51	-0.54
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.37	4.46	-4.84
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.57	24.33	-24.90

CRSH vs. QYLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CRSH Sharpe Ratio is -0.35, which is lower than the QYLD Sharpe Ratio of 2.29. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CRSH 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

CRSH vs. QYLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CRSH drawdown since its inception was -63.68%, which is greater than QYLD's maximum drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CRSH and QYLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	CRSH	QYLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-63.68%	-24.75%	-38.93%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-33.45%	-4.97%	-28.48%
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	-55.92%	-1.77%	-54.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-43.44%	-3.82%	-39.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	21.75%	0.91%	+20.84%

Volatility

CRSH vs. QYLD - Volatility Comparison

YieldMax Short TSLA Option Income Strategy ETF (CRSH) has a higher volatility of 9.51% compared to Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD) at 4.78%. This indicates that CRSH's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QYLD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CRSH	QYLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.51%	4.78%	+4.73%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.34%	8.45%	+13.89%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	35.48%	9.69%	+25.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	47.19%	14.84%	+32.35%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	47.19%	15.55%	+31.64%

CRSH vs. QYLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

CRSH vs. QYLD - Dividend Comparison

CRSH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 84.23%, more than QYLD's 11.64% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CRSH YieldMax Short TSLA Option Income Strategy ETF	84.23%	138.78%	94.25%	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	11.64%	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 CRSH and QYLD in my portfolio?

CRSH and QYLD have a correlation of -0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CRSH or QYLD?

CRSH has higher volatility (9.51%) compared to QYLD (4.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CRSH dropped -63.68% vs QYLD's -24.75%.

Which ETF is better, CRSH or QYLD?

On 1-year performance, QYLD leads with 22.07% vs -12.42% for CRSH. On fees, QYLD is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, QYLD has been the lower-risk option at 4.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CRSH or QYLD?

Over the 1-year period, QYLD has performed better with a 22.07% return vs -12.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CRSH or QYLD?

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

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

CRSH has the higher dividend yield at 84.23%, compared with 11.64% for QYLD.

What is the main difference between CRSH and QYLD?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QYLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.29 vs -0.35), 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.