EMC vs. QYLD

Last updated Jul 15, 2026

EMC (Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF) and QYLD (Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EMC is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund actively managed by Global X, while QYLD is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the CBOE NASDAQ-100 Buy Write V2. EMC is actively managed, while QYLD is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, EMC returned 13.07%/yr vs 13.71%/yr for QYLD. A 0.63 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EMC charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for QYLD.

Performance

EMC vs. QYLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF (EMC) 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, EMC achieves a 18.17% return, which is significantly higher than QYLD's 10.42% return.

EMC

• 1D: 1.41%
• 1M: -3.21%
• 6M: 13.00%
• YTD: 18.17%
• 1Y: 25.56%
• 3Y*: 13.07%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QYLD

• 1D: 1.21%
• 1M: 2.57%
• 6M: 9.06%
• YTD: 10.42%
• 1Y: 23.40%
• 3Y*: 13.71%
• 5Y*: 8.57%
• 10Y*: 9.99%

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

EMC vs. QYLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
EMC Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF	18.17%	18.91%	3.75%	1.62%
QYLD Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF	10.42%	9.28%	19.35%	7.21%

Correlation

The correlation between EMC and QYLD is 0.74, 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	0.74
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.64
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 15, 2023	0.63

The correlation between EMC and QYLD shifts across timeframes, from 0.63 (all time) to 0.74 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

EMC vs. QYLD — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMC

EMC Risk / Return Rank: 41
EMC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
EMC Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
EMC Omega Ratio Rank: 39
EMC Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
EMC Martin Ratio Rank: 47

QYLD

QYLD Risk / Return Rank: 90
QYLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
QYLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
QYLD Omega Ratio Rank: 91
QYLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
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.

EMC vs. QYLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF (EMC) 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.

	EMC	QYLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.08	2.22	-1.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.57	3.12	-1.55
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.47	-0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.85	4.73	-2.88
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.19	24.61	-18.42

EMC vs. QYLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMC Sharpe Ratio is 1.08, which is lower than the QYLD Sharpe Ratio of 2.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMC 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

EMC vs. QYLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMC drawdown since its inception was -18.38%, smaller than the maximum QYLD drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMC and QYLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMC	QYLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.38%	-24.75%	+6.37%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.89%	-4.97%	-8.92%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.38%	-19.06%	+0.68%
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	-7.29%	-0.49%	-6.80%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.13%	-3.81%	-0.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.14%	0.95%	+3.19%

Volatility

EMC vs. QYLD - Volatility Comparison

Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF (EMC) has a higher volatility of 9.90% compared to Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD) at 5.57%. This indicates that EMC'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

	EMC	QYLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.90%	5.57%	+4.33%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.65%	9.45%	+12.20%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.66%	10.61%	+13.05%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.50%	14.97%	+4.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.50%	15.59%	+3.91%

EMC vs. QYLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMC has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than QYLD's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMC vs. QYLD - Dividend Comparison

EMC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.58%, less than QYLD's 11.42% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EMC Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF	0.58%	0.78%	1.13%	0.89%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QYLD Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF	11.42%	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 EMC and QYLD in my portfolio?

EMC and QYLD have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EMC or QYLD?

EMC has higher volatility (9.90%) compared to QYLD (5.57%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMC dropped -18.38% vs QYLD's -24.75%.

Which ETF is better, EMC or QYLD?

On 3-year performance, QYLD leads with 13.71% vs 13.07% for EMC. On fees, QYLD is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, QYLD has been the lower-risk option at 5.57%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMC or QYLD?

Over the 3-year period, QYLD has performed better with a 13.71% return vs 13.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMC or QYLD?

QYLD is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for EMC.

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

QYLD has the higher dividend yield at 11.42%, compared with 0.58% for EMC.

What is the main difference between EMC and QYLD?

EMC is categorized as Emerging Markets Diversified, while QYLD is Nasdaq-100. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for EMC and 0.60% for QYLD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QYLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.22 vs 1.08), 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.