PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
EMM vs. QYLD
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

EMM vs. QYLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (EMM) 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, EMM achieves a 32.97% return, which is significantly higher than QYLD's 7.88% return.


EMM

1D
-1.15%
1M
10.12%
YTD
32.97%
6M
38.50%
1Y
63.51%
3Y*
22.67%
5Y*
10Y*

QYLD

1D
-0.06%
1M
1.62%
YTD
7.88%
6M
9.97%
1Y
23.93%
3Y*
13.80%
5Y*
8.43%
10Y*
9.80%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EMM vs. QYLD - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023
EMM
Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF
32.97%30.21%2.34%3.40%
QYLD
Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF
7.88%9.28%19.35%7.08%

Correlation

The correlation between EMM and QYLD is 0.71, 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

0.71

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.63

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 16, 2023

0.62

The correlation between EMM and QYLD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.62 to 0.71 - a consistent structural relationship.

EMM vs. QYLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
EMM
QYLD

Technology

45.5%
53.8%

Financial Services

25.0%
0.2%

Industrials

5.9%
2.8%

Consumer Defensive

5.1%
7.7%

Energy

4.8%
0.6%

Basic Materials

3.9%
1.1%

Consumer Cyclical

2.7%
12.3%

Communication Services

2.7%
15.8%

Real Estate

1.8%
0.1%

Healthcare

1.5%
4.2%

Utilities

1.2%
1.4%

Technology

EMM
45.5%
QYLD
53.8%

Financial Services

EMM
25.0%
QYLD
0.2%

Industrials

EMM
5.9%
QYLD
2.8%

Consumer Defensive

EMM
5.1%
QYLD
7.7%

Energy

EMM
4.8%
QYLD
0.6%

Basic Materials

EMM
3.9%
QYLD
1.1%

Consumer Cyclical

EMM
2.7%
QYLD
12.3%

Communication Services

EMM
2.7%
QYLD
15.8%

Real Estate

EMM
1.8%
QYLD
0.1%

Healthcare

EMM
1.5%
QYLD
4.2%

Utilities

EMM
1.2%
QYLD
1.4%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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


Return for Risk

EMM vs. QYLD — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMM
EMM Risk / Return Rank: 8585
Overall Rank
EMM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8787
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMM Sortino Ratio Rank: 8484
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMM Omega Ratio Rank: 8585
Omega Ratio Rank
EMM Calmar Ratio Rank: 8282
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMM Martin Ratio Rank: 8686
Martin Ratio Rank

QYLD
QYLD Risk / Return Rank: 8888
Overall Rank
QYLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8484
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QYLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 8585
Sortino Ratio Rank
QYLD Omega Ratio Rank: 9292
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.

EMM vs. QYLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (EMM) 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.


EMMQYLDDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.14

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.13

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.52

1.63

-0.11

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.33

4.84

-0.51

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

18.13

28.36

-10.23

EMM vs. QYLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMM Sharpe Ratio is 2.94, which is comparable to the QYLD Sharpe Ratio of 2.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMM 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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


EMMQYLDDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.94

2.80

+0.14

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.58

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.63

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.17

0.59

+0.58

Drawdowns

EMM vs. QYLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMM drawdown since its inception was -21.99%, smaller than the maximum QYLD drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMM and QYLD.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EMMQYLDDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-21.99%

-24.75%

+2.76%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-14.75%

-4.97%

-9.78%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-21.99%

-19.06%

-2.93%

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

-1.15%

-0.06%

-1.09%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.68%

-3.84%

-0.84%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.51%

0.85%

+2.66%

Volatility

EMM vs. QYLD - Volatility Comparison

Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (EMM) has a higher volatility of 9.79% compared to Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD) at 1.85%. This indicates that EMM'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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EMMQYLDDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

9.79%

1.85%

+7.94%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

19.28%

7.12%

+12.16%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

21.69%

8.58%

+13.11%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.83%

14.70%

+4.13%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.83%

15.49%

+3.34%

EMM vs. QYLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

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


Dividends

EMM vs. QYLD - Dividend Comparison

EMM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.67%, less than QYLD's 11.46% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EMM
Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF
0.67%0.90%0.80%0.66%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
QYLD
Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF
11.46%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


EMM and QYLD have a correlation of 0.71, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

EMM has higher volatility (9.79%) compared to QYLD (1.85%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMM dropped -21.99% vs QYLD's -24.75%.

On 3-year performance, EMM leads with 22.67% vs 13.80% for QYLD. On fees, QYLD is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, QYLD has been the lower-risk option at 1.85%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 3-year period, EMM has performed better with a 22.67% return vs 13.80%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

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

QYLD has the higher dividend yield at 11.46%, compared with 0.67% for EMM.

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

EMM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.94 vs 2.80), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EMM 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