MLPD vs. GDIG.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

MLPD (Global X MLP & Energy Infrastructure Covered Call ETF) and GDIG.L (VanEck S&P Global Mining UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MLPD is a Derivative Income fund tracking the Cboe MLPX ATM BuyWrite Index, while GDIG.L is a Materials fund tracking the S&P Global Mining Reduced Coal Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, MLPD returned 15.24% vs 86.92% for GDIG.L. At a 0.11 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MLPD charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for GDIG.L.

Performance

MLPD vs. GDIG.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X MLP & Energy Infrastructure Covered Call ETF (MLPD) and VanEck S&P Global Mining UCITS ETF (GDIG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MLPD achieves a 5.20% return, which is significantly lower than GDIG.L's 17.71% return.

MLPD

• 1D: 0.22%
• 1M: -0.32%
• YTD: 5.20%
• 6M: 6.70%
• 1Y: 15.24%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GDIG.L

• 1D: -2.61%
• 1M: 4.00%
• YTD: 17.71%
• 6M: 26.04%
• 1Y: 86.92%
• 3Y*: 30.04%
• 5Y*: 14.63%
• 10Y*: —

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

MLPD vs. GDIG.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MLPD Global X MLP & Energy Infrastructure Covered Call ETF	5.20%	11.77%	9.42%
GDIG.L VanEck S&P Global Mining UCITS ETF	17.71%	90.59%	-12.02%

Correlation

The correlation between MLPD and GDIG.L is 0.03, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.03
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 9, 2024	0.11

MLPD vs. GDIG.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MLPD	GDIG.L
Energy	100.0%	4.3%
Basic Materials	-	93.9%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	1.0%
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	0.8%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

MLPD vs. GDIG.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

MLPD

MLPD Risk / Return Rank: 62
MLPD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
MLPD Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
MLPD Omega Ratio Rank: 64
MLPD Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
MLPD Martin Ratio Rank: 59

GDIG.L

GDIG.L Risk / Return Rank: 68
GDIG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
GDIG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
GDIG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 63
GDIG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
GDIG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 65

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.

MLPD vs. GDIG.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X MLP & Energy Infrastructure Covered Call ETF (MLPD) and VanEck S&P Global Mining UCITS ETF (GDIG.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.

	MLPD	GDIG.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.08	2.49	-0.41
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.78	2.95	-0.17
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.38	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.19	3.59	-0.40
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.41	11.72	-1.31
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MLPD vs. GDIG.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MLPD Sharpe Ratio is 2.08, which is comparable to the GDIG.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MLPD and GDIG.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

	MLPD	GDIG.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.08	2.49	-0.41
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.47	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.15	0.54	+0.61

Drawdowns

MLPD vs. GDIG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MLPD drawdown since its inception was -12.90%, smaller than the maximum GDIG.L drawdown of -40.03%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MLPD and GDIG.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	MLPD	GDIG.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.90%	-40.03%	+27.13%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.80%	-24.08%	+19.28%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-24.08%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-40.03%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.77%	-11.12%	+9.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.12%	-12.71%	+11.59%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.47%	7.39%	-5.92%

Volatility

MLPD vs. GDIG.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X MLP & Energy Infrastructure Covered Call ETF (MLPD) is 2.91%, while VanEck S&P Global Mining UCITS ETF (GDIG.L) has a volatility of 12.50%. This indicates that MLPD experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GDIG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MLPD	GDIG.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.91%	12.50%	-9.59%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.32%	29.02%	-23.70%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.40%	34.78%	-27.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.40%	31.31%	-19.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.40%	29.93%	-18.53%

MLPD vs. GDIG.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

MLPD has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than GDIG.L's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

MLPD vs. GDIG.L - Dividend Comparison

MLPD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 13.44%, while GDIG.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
GDIG.L VanEck S&P Global Mining UCITS ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
MLPD Global X MLP & Energy Infrastructure Covered Call ETF	13.44%	13.45%	6.68%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MLPD and GDIG.L in my portfolio?

MLPD and GDIG.L have a correlation of 0.03, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, MLPD or GDIG.L?

On fees, GDIG.L is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, MLPD or GDIG.L?

GDIG.L is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for MLPD.

What is the main difference between MLPD and GDIG.L?

MLPD is categorized as Derivative Income, while GDIG.L is Materials. MLPD tracks Cboe MLPX ATM BuyWrite Index, while GDIG.L tracks S&P Global Mining Reduced Coal Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for MLPD and 0.50% for GDIG.L.