GDMA vs. QCLR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

GDMA (Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF) and QCLR (Global X NASDAQ 100 Collar 95-110 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GDMA is a Hedge Fund fund actively managed by Gadsden, while QCLR is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Quarterly Collar 95-110 Index. GDMA is actively managed, while QCLR is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, GDMA returned 16.68%/yr vs 13.86%/yr for QCLR. At a 0.31 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GDMA charges 0.77%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for QCLR.

Performance

GDMA vs. QCLR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA) and Global X NASDAQ 100 Collar 95-110 ETF (QCLR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GDMA achieves a 10.22% return, which is significantly higher than QCLR's 0.21% return.

GDMA

• 1D: -3.51%
• 1M: 2.90%
• YTD: 10.22%
• 6M: 9.52%
• 1Y: 30.24%
• 3Y*: 16.68%
• 5Y*: 8.19%
• 10Y*: —

QCLR

• 1D: -1.44%
• 1M: -0.86%
• YTD: 0.21%
• 6M: -0.60%
• 1Y: 9.10%
• 3Y*: 13.86%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GDMA vs. QCLR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
GDMA Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF	10.22%	25.29%	7.44%	1.72%	-2.08%	1.23%
QCLR Global X NASDAQ 100 Collar 95-110 ETF	0.21%	11.27%	20.27%	28.87%	-18.87%	2.29%

Correlation

The correlation between GDMA and QCLR is 0.54, 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	0.54
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.54
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 26, 2021	0.31

Over the past year, GDMA and QCLR have become more correlated (0.54) than their long-term average of 0.31, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

GDMA vs. QCLR — Risk / Return Rank

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

GDMA

GDMA Risk / Return Rank: 67
GDMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
GDMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
GDMA Omega Ratio Rank: 69
GDMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
GDMA Martin Ratio Rank: 63

QCLR

QCLR Risk / Return Rank: 25
QCLR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
QCLR Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
QCLR Omega Ratio Rank: 27
QCLR Calmar Ratio Rank: 21
QCLR Martin Ratio Rank: 25

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.

GDMA vs. QCLR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA) and Global X NASDAQ 100 Collar 95-110 ETF (QCLR). 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.

	GDMA	QCLR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.00	0.95	+1.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.56	1.30	+1.26
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.18	+0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.03	0.89	+3.14
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.70	3.21	+7.49

GDMA vs. QCLR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GDMA Sharpe Ratio is 2.00, which is higher than the QCLR Sharpe Ratio of 0.95. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GDMA and QCLR, 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

GDMA vs. QCLR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GDMA drawdown since its inception was -16.66%, smaller than the maximum QCLR drawdown of -21.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GDMA and QCLR.

Drawdown Indicators

	GDMA	QCLR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.66%	-21.77%	+5.11%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.53%	-10.22%	+2.69%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-7.53%	-13.58%	+6.05%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-12.74%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.51%	-2.05%	-1.46%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.78%	-6.14%	+2.36%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.83%	2.84%	-0.01%

Volatility

GDMA vs. QCLR - Volatility Comparison

Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA) has a higher volatility of 8.71% compared to Global X NASDAQ 100 Collar 95-110 ETF (QCLR) at 1.58%. This indicates that GDMA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QCLR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GDMA	QCLR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.71%	1.58%	+7.13%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.85%	6.59%	+6.26%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.24%	9.68%	+5.56%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.21%	12.38%	-2.17%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.32%	12.38%	-1.06%

GDMA vs. QCLR - Expense Ratio Comparison

GDMA has a 0.77% expense ratio, which is higher than QCLR's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

GDMA vs. QCLR - Dividend Comparison

GDMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.53%, less than QCLR's 14.86% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
GDMA Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF	2.53%	2.79%	2.32%	4.14%	1.18%	2.10%	0.62%	3.17%
QCLR Global X NASDAQ 100 Collar 95-110 ETF	14.86%	14.89%	8.89%	0.47%	0.27%	1.64%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GDMA and QCLR in my portfolio?

GDMA and QCLR have a correlation of 0.54, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GDMA or QCLR?

GDMA has higher volatility (8.71%) compared to QCLR (1.58%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GDMA dropped -16.66% vs QCLR's -21.77%.

Which ETF is better, GDMA or QCLR?

On 3-year performance, GDMA leads with 16.68% vs 13.86% for QCLR. On fees, QCLR is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, QCLR has been the lower-risk option at 1.58%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GDMA or QCLR?

Over the 3-year period, GDMA has performed better with a 16.68% return vs 13.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GDMA or QCLR?

QCLR is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.77% for GDMA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GDMA or QCLR?

QCLR has the higher dividend yield at 14.86%, compared with 2.53% for GDMA.

What is the main difference between GDMA and QCLR?

GDMA is categorized as Hedge Fund, while QCLR is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Gadsden and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.77% for GDMA and 0.60% for QCLR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GDMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.00 vs 0.95), 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.