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

Performance

MLPA vs. QYLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X MLP ETF (MLPA) 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, MLPA achieves a 21.83% return, which is significantly higher than QYLD's 7.67% return. Over the past 10 years, MLPA has underperformed QYLD with an annualized return of 6.71%, while QYLD has yielded a comparatively higher 9.59% annualized return.


MLPA

1D
0.87%
1M
6.27%
6M
14.54%
YTD
21.83%
1Y
20.93%
3Y*
16.99%
5Y*
18.11%
10Y*
6.71%
ALL TIME*
4.63%

QYLD

1D
0.65%
1M
-0.98%
6M
5.88%
YTD
7.67%
1Y
20.66%
3Y*
12.32%
5Y*
7.83%
10Y*
9.59%
ALL TIME*
8.57%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$8.12M$8.66M$10.73M
$83.30M$78.68M$98.28M

MLPA vs. QYLD - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
MLPA
Global X MLP ETF
21.83%5.73%20.35%15.93%27.03%39.64%-33.97%11.91%-15.71%-8.31%
QYLD
Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF
7.67%9.28%19.35%22.77%-19.08%10.41%8.72%22.69%-3.07%18.79%

Correlation

The correlation between MLPA and QYLD is -0.06, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

-0.06

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.14

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.26

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.30

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 12, 2013

0.30

The correlation between MLPA and QYLD shifts across timeframes, from -0.06 (1 year) to 0.30 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

MLPA vs. QYLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
MLPA
QYLD

Energy

97.2%
0.5%

Industrials

3.8%
4.4%

Utilities

2.8%
1.3%

Basic Materials

-

1.1%

Communication Services

-

12.5%

Consumer Cyclical

-

10.2%

Consumer Defensive

-

6.7%

Financial Services

-

0.2%

Healthcare

-

3.8%

Real Estate

-

0.1%

Technology

-

61.4%

Energy

MLPA
97.2%
QYLD
0.5%

Industrials

MLPA
3.8%
QYLD
4.4%

Utilities

MLPA
2.8%
QYLD
1.3%

Basic Materials

MLPA

-

QYLD
1.1%

Communication Services

MLPA

-

QYLD
12.5%

Consumer Cyclical

MLPA

-

QYLD
10.2%

Consumer Defensive

MLPA

-

QYLD
6.7%

Financial Services

MLPA

-

QYLD
0.2%

Healthcare

MLPA

-

QYLD
3.8%

Real Estate

MLPA

-

QYLD
0.1%

Technology

MLPA

-

QYLD
61.4%

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

MLPA vs. QYLD — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

MLPA
MLPA Risk / Return Rank: 6464
Overall Rank
MLPA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6767
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MLPA Sortino Ratio Rank: 6666
Sortino Ratio Rank
MLPA Omega Ratio Rank: 6161
Omega Ratio Rank
MLPA Calmar Ratio Rank: 7171
Calmar Ratio Rank
MLPA Martin Ratio Rank: 5656
Martin Ratio Rank

QYLD
QYLD Risk / Return Rank: 8383
Overall Rank
QYLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7777
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QYLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 7777
Sortino Ratio Rank
QYLD Omega Ratio Rank: 8383
Omega Ratio Rank
QYLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 8686
Calmar Ratio Rank
QYLD Martin Ratio Rank: 9292
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

MLPA vs. QYLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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


MLPAQYLDDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.21

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.31

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.26

1.35

-0.09

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.46

3.38

-0.92

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

6.61

15.70

-9.10

MLPA vs. QYLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MLPA Sharpe Ratio is 1.53, which is comparable to the QYLD Sharpe Ratio of 1.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MLPA 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...

Drawdowns

MLPA vs. QYLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MLPA drawdown since its inception was -78.75%, which is greater than QYLD's maximum drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MLPA and QYLD.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


MLPAQYLDDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-78.75%

-24.75%

-54.00%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.73%

-5.78%

-1.95%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-14.20%

-19.06%

+4.86%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-18.75%

-24.61%

+5.86%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-74.05%

-24.75%

-49.30%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-2.96%

+2.96%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-20.08%

-3.81%

-16.27%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.18%

1.24%

+1.94%

Volatility

MLPA vs. QYLD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X MLP ETF (MLPA) is 4.14%, while Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD) has a volatility of 5.19%. This indicates that MLPA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QYLD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


MLPAQYLDDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.14%

5.19%

-1.05%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.72%

10.04%

-0.32%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.47%

11.26%

+1.21%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.73%

15.04%

+2.69%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

27.39%

15.63%

+11.76%

MLPA vs. QYLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

MLPA has a 0.77% expense ratio, which is higher than QYLD's 0.60% expense ratio.


Dividends

MLPA vs. QYLD - Dividend Comparison

MLPA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.93%, less than QYLD's 11.89% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
MLPA
Global X MLP ETF
6.93%7.82%7.25%7.49%7.30%8.72%13.84%9.09%10.00%8.05%7.15%9.29%
QYLD
Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF
11.89%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


MLPA and QYLD have a correlation of -0.06, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

QYLD has higher volatility (5.19%) compared to MLPA (4.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MLPA dropped -78.75% vs QYLD's -24.75%.

On 10-year performance, QYLD leads with 9.59% vs 6.71% for MLPA. On fees, QYLD is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, MLPA has been the lower-risk option at 4.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, QYLD has performed better with a 9.59% return vs 6.71%. 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 0.77% for MLPA.

QYLD has the higher dividend yield at 11.89%, compared with 6.93% for MLPA.

MLPA is categorized as MLPs, while QYLD is Nasdaq-100. MLPA tracks Solactive MLP Infrastructure Index, while QYLD tracks CBOE NASDAQ-100 Buy Write V2. Their fees differ too: 0.77% for MLPA and 0.60% for QYLD.

QYLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.73 vs 1.53), 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 MLPA 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