FING.L vs. QYLP.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FING.L (Global X FinTech UCITS ETF USD Distributing) and QYLP.L (Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP) are both exchange-traded funds - FING.L is a Financials Equities fund tracking the Indxx Global Fintech Thematic, while QYLP.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the Cboe Nasdaq-100 BuyWrite Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FING.L returned 2.99%/yr vs 7.16%/yr for QYLP.L. At a 0.41 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FING.L charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for QYLP.L.

Performance

FING.L vs. QYLP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Global X FinTech UCITS ETF USD Distributing (FING.L) and Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP (QYLP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FING.L achieves a -16.91% return, which is significantly lower than QYLP.L's 5.63% return.

FING.L

• 1D: -4.14%
• 1M: -2.65%
• YTD: -16.91%
• 6M: -19.10%
• 1Y: -19.47%
• 3Y*: 2.99%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QYLP.L

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: 3.75%
• YTD: 5.63%
• 6M: 6.22%
• 1Y: 18.85%
• 3Y*: 7.16%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FING.L vs. QYLP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
FING.L Global X FinTech UCITS ETF USD Distributing	-16.91%	-12.16%	24.04%	29.09%	-4.96%
QYLP.L Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP	5.63%	-4.48%	21.40%	14.93%	-18.74%

Correlation

The correlation between FING.L and QYLP.L is 0.36, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.36
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.40
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 23, 2022	0.41

FING.L vs. QYLP.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FING.L	QYLP.L
Technology	54.2%	24.2%
Financial Services	40.6%	15.8%
Industrials	3.9%	8.3%
Healthcare	1.4%	7.6%
Consumer Defensive	0.0%	6.0%
Basic Materials	-	4.7%
Communication Services	-	10.0%
Consumer Cyclical	-	17.6%
Energy	-	0.2%
Real Estate	-	2.3%
Utilities	-	3.2%

Return for Risk

FING.L vs. QYLP.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

FING.L

FING.L Risk / Return Rank: 4
FING.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3
FING.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 3
FING.L Omega Ratio Rank: 3
FING.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 4
FING.L Martin Ratio Rank: 4

QYLP.L

QYLP.L Risk / Return Rank: 73
QYLP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
QYLP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
QYLP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 67
QYLP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
QYLP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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.

FING.L vs. QYLP.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X FinTech UCITS ETF USD Distributing (FING.L) and Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP (QYLP.L). 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.

	FING.L	QYLP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.75	2.21	-2.96
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.91	3.21	-4.12
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.89	1.41	-0.52
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.53	5.00	-5.54
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.00	14.85	-15.85
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FING.L vs. QYLP.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FING.L Sharpe Ratio is -0.75, which is lower than the QYLP.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.21. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FING.L and QYLP.L, 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

	FING.L	QYLP.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.75	2.21	-2.96
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.45	0.26	-0.71

Drawdowns

FING.L vs. QYLP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FING.L drawdown since its inception was -56.45%, which is greater than QYLP.L's maximum drawdown of -22.40%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FING.L and QYLP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	FING.L	QYLP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-56.45%	-22.40%	-34.05%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-36.51%	-3.75%	-32.76%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-38.02%	-22.40%	-15.62%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-46.60%	-3.77%	-42.83%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-39.72%	-8.64%	-31.08%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	19.42%	1.27%	+18.15%

Volatility

FING.L vs. QYLP.L - Volatility Comparison

Global X FinTech UCITS ETF USD Distributing (FING.L) has a higher volatility of 7.42% compared to Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP (QYLP.L) at 2.61%. This indicates that FING.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QYLP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FING.L	QYLP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.42%	2.61%	+4.81%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.97%	6.52%	+13.45%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.07%	8.52%	+17.55%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.65%	15.11%	+13.54%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.65%	15.11%	+13.54%

FING.L vs. QYLP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

FING.L has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than QYLP.L's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

FING.L vs. QYLP.L - Dividend Comparison

FING.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QYLP.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.67%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
FING.L Global X FinTech UCITS ETF USD Distributing	0.00%	0.00%	0.21%	0.08%
QYLP.L Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP	7.67%	8.93%	8.31%	9.56%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FING.L and QYLP.L in my portfolio?

FING.L and QYLP.L have a correlation of 0.36, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, FING.L or QYLP.L?

On fees, QYLP.L is cheaper at 0.45% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, FING.L or QYLP.L?

QYLP.L is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for FING.L.

What is the main difference between FING.L and QYLP.L?

FING.L is categorized as Financials Equities, while QYLP.L is Nasdaq-100. FING.L tracks Indxx Global Fintech Thematic, while QYLP.L tracks Cboe Nasdaq-100 BuyWrite Index. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for FING.L and 0.45% for QYLP.L.