GLCC.TO vs. YMAG
Compare and contrast key facts about Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF (GLCC.TO) and YieldMax Magnificent 7 Fund of Option Income ETFs (YMAG).
GLCC.TO and YMAG are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. GLCC.TO is an actively managed fund by Global X. It was launched on Apr 11, 2011. YMAG is an actively managed fund by YieldMax. It was launched on Jan 29, 2024.
Performance
GLCC.TO vs. YMAG - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
GLCC.TO vs. YMAG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
GLCC.TO Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF | 5.98% | 137.43% | 32.08% |
YMAG YieldMax Magnificent 7 Fund of Option Income ETFs | -7.90% | 13.19% | 46.03% |
Different Trading Currencies
GLCC.TO is traded in CAD, while YMAG is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the YMAG values have been converted to CAD using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GLCC.TO achieves a 5.98% return, which is significantly higher than YMAG's -7.90% return.
GLCC.TO
- 1D
- 5.95%
- 1M
- -18.48%
- YTD
- 5.98%
- 6M
- 20.90%
- 1Y
- 86.11%
- 3Y*
- 43.56%
- 5Y*
- 25.34%
- 10Y*
- 17.68%
YMAG
- 1D
- 3.71%
- 1M
- -2.05%
- YTD
- -7.90%
- 6M
- -6.44%
- 1Y
- 21.21%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
GLCC.TO vs. YMAG - Expense Ratio Comparison
GLCC.TO has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than YMAG's 1.28% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
GLCC.TO vs. YMAG — Risk / Return Rank
GLCC.TO
YMAG
GLCC.TO vs. YMAG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF (GLCC.TO) and YieldMax Magnificent 7 Fund of Option Income ETFs (YMAG). 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.
| GLCC.TO | YMAG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 2.10 | 0.96 | +1.13 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 2.39 | 1.42 | +0.96 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.36 | 1.20 | +0.16 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.04 | 1.46 | +1.58 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 11.66 | 4.32 | +7.34 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| GLCC.TO | YMAG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.10 | 0.96 | +1.13 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.82 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.56 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.00 | 1.03 | -1.03 |
Correlation
The correlation between GLCC.TO and YMAG is 0.02, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.
Dividends
GLCC.TO vs. YMAG - Dividend Comparison
GLCC.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.21%, less than YMAG's 55.67% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GLCC.TO Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF | 6.21% | 6.01% | 10.30% | 11.16% | 10.08% | 6.31% | 6.47% | 4.58% | 5.62% | 7.09% | 9.21% | 11.63% |
YMAG YieldMax Magnificent 7 Fund of Option Income ETFs | 55.67% | 52.27% | 35.22% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Drawdowns
GLCC.TO vs. YMAG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GLCC.TO drawdown since its inception was -71.12%, which is greater than YMAG's maximum drawdown of -27.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLCC.TO and YMAG.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| GLCC.TO | YMAG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -71.12% | -25.96% | -45.16% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -28.86% | -14.38% | -14.48% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -37.60% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -44.83% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -18.48% | -11.11% | -7.37% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -34.62% | -4.68% | -29.94% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 7.54% | 4.15% | +3.39% |
Volatility
GLCC.TO vs. YMAG - Volatility Comparison
Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF (GLCC.TO) has a higher volatility of 17.09% compared to YieldMax Magnificent 7 Fund of Option Income ETFs (YMAG) at 6.90%. This indicates that GLCC.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than YMAG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| GLCC.TO | YMAG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 17.09% | 6.90% | +10.19% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 34.47% | 12.68% | +21.79% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 41.29% | 22.10% | +19.19% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 31.17% | 20.97% | +10.20% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 31.75% | 20.97% | +10.78% |