PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
NESG.L vs. QYLP.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

NESG.L vs. QYLP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco NASDAQ-100 ESG UCITS ETF Acc (NESG.L) and Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP (QYLP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

NESG.L is traded in USD, while QYLP.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the QYLP.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NESG.L achieves a 20.35% return, which is significantly higher than QYLP.L's 4.41% return.


NESG.L

1D
-0.58%
1M
9.66%
YTD
20.35%
6M
20.11%
1Y
42.69%
3Y*
28.99%
5Y*
10Y*

QYLP.L

1D
-0.86%
1M
1.17%
YTD
4.41%
6M
6.42%
1Y
16.79%
3Y*
9.52%
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

NESG.L vs. QYLP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022
NESG.L
Invesco NASDAQ-100 ESG UCITS ETF Acc
20.35%21.09%26.52%56.71%-6.15%
QYLP.L
Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP
4.41%2.73%19.38%20.99%-17.36%

Correlation

The correlation between NESG.L and QYLP.L is 0.55, 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

0.55

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.60

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 23, 2022

0.60

The correlation between NESG.L and QYLP.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.55 to 0.60 - a consistent structural relationship.

NESG.L vs. QYLP.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
NESG.L
QYLP.L

Technology

58.4%
24.2%

Communication Services

14.7%
10.0%

Consumer Cyclical

12.4%
17.6%

Consumer Defensive

6.7%
6.0%

Healthcare

3.9%
7.6%

Industrials

1.8%
8.3%

Basic Materials

1.5%
4.7%

Utilities

0.2%
3.2%

Financial Services

0.2%
15.8%

Real Estate

0.1%
2.3%

Energy

-

0.2%

Technology

NESG.L
58.4%
QYLP.L
24.2%

Communication Services

NESG.L
14.7%
QYLP.L
10.0%

Consumer Cyclical

NESG.L
12.4%
QYLP.L
17.6%

Consumer Defensive

NESG.L
6.7%
QYLP.L
6.0%

Healthcare

NESG.L
3.9%
QYLP.L
7.6%

Industrials

NESG.L
1.8%
QYLP.L
8.3%

Basic Materials

NESG.L
1.5%
QYLP.L
4.7%

Utilities

NESG.L
0.2%
QYLP.L
3.2%

Financial Services

NESG.L
0.2%
QYLP.L
15.8%

Real Estate

NESG.L
0.1%
QYLP.L
2.3%

Energy

NESG.L

-

QYLP.L
0.2%

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

NESG.L vs. QYLP.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

NESG.L
NESG.L Risk / Return Rank: 7575
Overall Rank
NESG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8181
Sharpe Ratio Rank
NESG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8080
Sortino Ratio Rank
NESG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7575
Omega Ratio Rank
NESG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7272
Calmar Ratio Rank
NESG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6868
Martin Ratio Rank

QYLP.L
QYLP.L Risk / Return Rank: 7171
Overall Rank
QYLP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6363
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QYLP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 6767
Sortino Ratio Rank
QYLP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6565
Omega Ratio Rank
QYLP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8686
Calmar Ratio Rank
QYLP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

NESG.L vs. QYLP.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco NASDAQ-100 ESG UCITS ETF Acc (NESG.L) and Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP (QYLP.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.


NESG.LQYLP.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.70

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.68

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.44

1.36

+0.08

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.54

3.27

+0.27

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.44

13.83

-1.39

NESG.L vs. QYLP.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NESG.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.58, which is higher than the QYLP.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.88. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NESG.L and QYLP.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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


NESG.LQYLP.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.58

1.88

+0.70

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.78

0.49

+0.29

Drawdowns

NESG.L vs. QYLP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NESG.L drawdown since its inception was -34.69%, which is greater than QYLP.L's maximum drawdown of -20.02%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NESG.L and QYLP.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


NESG.LQYLP.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-34.69%

-20.02%

-14.67%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.01%

-5.12%

-6.89%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-21.88%

-20.02%

-1.86%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.79%

-1.32%

+0.53%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.09%

-4.51%

-4.58%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.42%

1.21%

+2.21%

Volatility

NESG.L vs. QYLP.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco NASDAQ-100 ESG UCITS ETF Acc (NESG.L) has a higher volatility of 5.30% compared to Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP (QYLP.L) at 2.59%. This indicates that NESG.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QYLP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


NESG.LQYLP.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.30%

2.59%

+2.71%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.40%

7.18%

+5.22%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.47%

8.90%

+7.57%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.54%

14.78%

+7.76%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.54%

14.78%

+7.76%

NESG.L vs. QYLP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

NESG.L has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than QYLP.L's 0.45% expense ratio.


Dividends

NESG.L vs. QYLP.L - Dividend Comparison

NESG.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QYLP.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.74%.


PositionTTM202520242023
NESG.L
Invesco NASDAQ-100 ESG UCITS ETF Acc
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
QYLP.L
Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP
7.74%8.93%8.31%9.56%

Frequently Asked Questions


NESG.L and QYLP.L have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, NESG.L is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

NESG.L is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for QYLP.L.

NESG.L tracks NASDAQ-100 ESG Index®, while QYLP.L tracks Cboe Nasdaq-100 BuyWrite Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for NESG.L and 0.45% for QYLP.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for NESG.L and QYLP.L

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