HEAL vs. QYLD

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

HEAL (Global X HealthTech ETF) and QYLD (Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - HEAL is a Health & Biotech Equities fund tracking the Global X HealthTech Index, while QYLD is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the CBOE NASDAQ-100 Buy Write V2. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, HEAL returned -14.39%/yr vs 8.17%/yr for QYLD. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. HEAL charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for QYLD.

Performance

HEAL vs. QYLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X HealthTech ETF (HEAL) 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, HEAL achieves a -8.68% return, which is significantly lower than QYLD's 7.65% return.

HEAL

• 1D: 1.89%
• 1M: 7.54%
• YTD: -8.68%
• 6M: -10.67%
• 1Y: -16.50%
• 3Y*: -7.55%
• 5Y*: -14.39%
• 10Y*: —

QYLD

• 1D: -0.22%
• 1M: 1.18%
• YTD: 7.65%
• 6M: 7.29%
• 1Y: 21.61%
• 3Y*: 13.90%
• 5Y*: 8.17%
• 10Y*: 9.97%

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

HEAL vs. QYLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
HEAL Global X HealthTech ETF	-8.68%	-0.62%	-2.87%	-12.61%	-29.99%	-14.21%	16.89%
QYLD Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF	7.65%	9.28%	19.35%	22.77%	-19.08%	10.41%	12.17%

Correlation

The correlation between HEAL and QYLD is 0.48, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.48
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.51
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.60
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 30, 2020	0.60

The correlation between HEAL and QYLD shifts across timeframes, from 0.48 (1 year) to 0.60 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

HEAL vs. QYLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	HEAL	QYLD
Healthcare	96.5%	3.7%
Technology	2.9%	58.7%
Basic Materials	-	1.0%
Communication Services	-	14.3%
Consumer Cyclical	-	11.4%
Consumer Defensive	-	6.4%
Energy	-	0.5%
Financial Services	-	0.2%
Industrials	-	2.6%
Real Estate	-	0.1%
Utilities	-	1.2%

Return for Risk

HEAL vs. QYLD — Risk / Return Rank

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

HEAL

HEAL Risk / Return Rank: 4
HEAL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3
HEAL Sortino Ratio Rank: 3
HEAL Omega Ratio Rank: 4
HEAL Calmar Ratio Rank: 5
HEAL Martin Ratio Rank: 4

QYLD

QYLD Risk / Return Rank: 85
QYLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
QYLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
QYLD Omega Ratio Rank: 89
QYLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
QYLD Martin Ratio Rank: 94

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.

HEAL vs. QYLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X HealthTech ETF (HEAL) 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.

	HEAL	QYLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.74	2.24	-2.99
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.97	3.15	-4.13
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.89	1.50	-0.60
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.54	4.37	-4.91
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.03	24.01	-25.04

HEAL vs. QYLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HEAL Sharpe Ratio is -0.74, which is lower than the QYLD Sharpe Ratio of 2.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HEAL 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

HEAL vs. QYLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HEAL drawdown since its inception was -65.76%, which is greater than QYLD's maximum drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HEAL and QYLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	HEAL	QYLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-65.76%	-24.75%	-41.01%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-30.71%	-4.97%	-25.74%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-35.78%	-19.06%	-16.72%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-60.36%	-24.61%	-35.75%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-24.75%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-60.58%	-2.32%	-58.26%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-43.21%	-3.82%	-39.39%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	16.03%	0.90%	+15.13%

Volatility

HEAL vs. QYLD - Volatility Comparison

Global X HealthTech ETF (HEAL) has a higher volatility of 7.43% compared to Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD) at 4.79%. This indicates that HEAL'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

	HEAL	QYLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.43%	4.79%	+2.64%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.74%	8.45%	+8.29%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.40%	9.69%	+12.71%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.47%	14.84%	+11.63%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.28%	15.55%	+10.73%

HEAL vs. QYLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

HEAL has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than QYLD's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

HEAL vs. QYLD - Dividend Comparison

HEAL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.36%, less than QYLD's 11.71% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
HEAL Global X HealthTech ETF	0.36%	0.33%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.03%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QYLD Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF	11.71%	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 HEAL and QYLD in my portfolio?

HEAL and QYLD have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, HEAL or QYLD?

HEAL has higher volatility (7.43%) compared to QYLD (4.79%). In terms of maximum drawdown, HEAL dropped -65.76% vs QYLD's -24.75%.

Which ETF is better, HEAL or QYLD?

On 5-year performance, QYLD leads with 8.17% vs -14.39% for HEAL. On fees, HEAL is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, QYLD has been the lower-risk option at 4.79%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, HEAL or QYLD?

Over the 5-year period, QYLD has performed better with a 8.17% return vs -14.39%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, HEAL or QYLD?

HEAL is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for QYLD.

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

QYLD has the higher dividend yield at 11.71%, compared with 0.36% for HEAL.

What is the main difference between HEAL and QYLD?

HEAL is categorized as Health & Biotech Equities, while QYLD is Nasdaq-100. HEAL tracks Global X HealthTech Index, while QYLD tracks CBOE NASDAQ-100 Buy Write V2. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for HEAL and 0.60% for QYLD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QYLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.24 vs -0.74), 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.