QBUF vs. QYLG

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

QBUF (Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly) and QYLG (Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF) are both Nasdaq-100 funds - QBUF tracks the Invesco QQQ Trust while QYLG tracks the CBOE Nasdaq-100 BuyWrite V2 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, QBUF returned 9.46% vs 24.73% for QYLG. Their correlation of 0.83 means they have usually moved in the same direction. QBUF charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for QYLG.

Performance

QBUF vs. QYLG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly (QBUF) and Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF (QYLG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QBUF achieves a 3.75% return, which is significantly lower than QYLG's 11.78% return.

QBUF

• 1D: 0.84%
• 1M: 0.01%
• 6M: 2.65%
• YTD: 3.75%
• 1Y: 9.46%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 10.01%

QYLG

• 1D: 1.29%
• 1M: -0.86%
• 6M: 9.54%
• YTD: 11.78%
• 1Y: 24.73%
• 3Y*: 18.72%
• 5Y*: 11.26%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 14.10%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
QBUF Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly	$840.97K	$1.01M	$957.50K
QYLG Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF	$1.63M	$1.51M	$1.35M

QBUF vs. QYLG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QBUF Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly	3.75%	11.08%	5.90%
QYLG Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF	11.78%	15.29%	8.56%

Correlation

The correlation between QBUF and QYLG is 0.85, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 1, 2024	0.83

The correlation between QBUF and QYLG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

QBUF vs. QYLG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QBUF	QYLG
Technology	60.2%	60.8%
Communication Services	13.3%	13.1%
Consumer Cyclical	10.9%	10.7%
Consumer Defensive	6.5%	6.3%
Healthcare	3.6%	3.6%
Industrials	2.7%	2.7%
Utilities	1.2%	1.2%
Basic Materials	1.0%	1.1%
Energy	0.5%	0.5%
Financial Services	0.2%	0.2%
Real Estate	0.1%	0.1%

Return for Risk

QBUF vs. QYLG — Risk / Return Rank

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

QBUF

QBUF Risk / Return Rank: 67
QBUF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
QBUF Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
QBUF Omega Ratio Rank: 69
QBUF Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
QBUF Martin Ratio Rank: 79

QYLG

QYLG Risk / Return Rank: 74
QYLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
QYLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
QYLG Omega Ratio Rank: 68
QYLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
QYLG Martin Ratio Rank: 80

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.

QBUF vs. QYLG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly (QBUF) and Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF (QYLG). 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.

	QBUF	QYLG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.55	1.66	-0.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.21	2.31	-0.10
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.29	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.38	2.95	-0.57
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.08	10.79	+0.29

QBUF vs. QYLG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QBUF Sharpe Ratio is 1.55, which is comparable to the QYLG Sharpe Ratio of 1.66. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QBUF and QYLG, 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

QBUF vs. QYLG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QBUF drawdown since its inception was -8.84%, smaller than the maximum QYLG drawdown of -29.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QBUF and QYLG.

Drawdown Indicators

	QBUF	QYLG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.84%	-29.98%	+21.14%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.99%	-8.42%	+4.43%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-20.75%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-29.98%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.17%	-3.46%	+2.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.83%	-6.32%	+5.49%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.86%	2.30%	-1.44%

Volatility

QBUF vs. QYLG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly (QBUF) is 3.33%, while Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF (QYLG) has a volatility of 5.94%. This indicates that QBUF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QYLG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QBUF	QYLG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.33%	5.94%	-2.61%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.63%	12.88%	-8.25%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.14%	15.01%	-8.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.45%	18.39%	-9.94%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.45%	18.08%	-9.63%

QBUF vs. QYLG - Expense Ratio Comparison

QBUF has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than QYLG's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

QBUF vs. QYLG - Dividend Comparison

QBUF has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QYLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 17.39%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
QBUF Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QYLG Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF	17.39%	17.93%	25.27%	5.43%	6.91%	10.15%	1.44%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QBUF and QYLG in my portfolio?

QBUF and QYLG have a correlation of 0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QBUF or QYLG?

QYLG has higher volatility (5.94%) compared to QBUF (3.33%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QBUF dropped -8.84% vs QYLG's -29.98%.

Which ETF is better, QBUF or QYLG?

On 1-year performance, QYLG leads with 24.73% vs 9.46% for QBUF. On fees, QYLG is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, QBUF has been the lower-risk option at 3.33%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QBUF or QYLG?

Over the 1-year period, QYLG has performed better with a 24.73% return vs 9.46%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QBUF or QYLG?

QYLG is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for QBUF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QBUF or QYLG?

QYLG has the higher dividend yield at 17.39%, compared with 0.00% for QBUF.

What is the main difference between QBUF and QYLG?

QBUF tracks Invesco QQQ Trust, while QYLG tracks CBOE Nasdaq-100 BuyWrite V2 Index. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for QBUF and 0.60% for QYLG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QYLG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.66 vs 1.55), 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.