PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
QQU.TO vs. GLCC.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

QQU.TO vs. GLCC.TO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

QQU.TO (BetaPro NASDAQ-100 2x Daily Bull ETF) and GLCC.TO (Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QQU.TO is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index, while GLCC.TO is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by Global X. QQU.TO is passively managed, while GLCC.TO is actively managed. Over the past 10 years, QQU.TO returned 32.96%/yr vs 14.76%/yr for GLCC.TO. At a 0.13 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. QQU.TO charges 1.46%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for GLCC.TO.

Performance

QQU.TO vs. GLCC.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in BetaPro NASDAQ-100 2x Daily Bull ETF (QQU.TO) and Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF (GLCC.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QQU.TO achieves a 39.04% return, which is significantly higher than GLCC.TO's 1.66% return. Over the past 10 years, QQU.TO has outperformed GLCC.TO with an annualized return of 32.96%, while GLCC.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 14.76% annualized return.

QQU.TO

1D
-1.13%
1M
17.08%
YTD
39.04%
6M
34.49%
1Y
77.53%
3Y*
46.17%
5Y*
22.66%
10Y*
32.96%

GLCC.TO

1D
2.12%
1M
3.66%
YTD
1.66%
6M
6.30%
1Y
63.73%
3Y*
41.85%
5Y*
21.81%
10Y*
14.76%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

QQU.TO vs. GLCC.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
QQU.TO
BetaPro NASDAQ-100 2x Daily Bull ETF		39.04%26.77%40.01%114.00%-61.73%52.20%83.84%80.24%-11.03%68.57%
GLCC.TO
Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF		1.66%137.43%20.18%6.19%-1.80%-9.37%15.00%38.72%-0.38%7.33%

Correlation

The correlation between QQU.TO and GLCC.TO is 0.30, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.30

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

0.20

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.17

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.13

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 15, 2011

0.13

The correlation between QQU.TO and GLCC.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.13 (all time) to 0.30 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

QQU.TO vs. GLCC.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
QQU.TO
GLCC.TO

Technology

53.7%

-

Communication Services

15.8%

-

Consumer Cyclical

12.2%

-

Consumer Defensive

7.7%

-

Healthcare

4.2%

-

Industrials

3.1%

-

Utilities

1.4%

-

Basic Materials

1.1%
100.0%

Energy

0.6%

-

Financial Services

0.2%

-

Real Estate

0.1%

-

Technology

QQU.TO
53.7%
GLCC.TO

-

Communication Services

QQU.TO
15.8%
GLCC.TO

-

Consumer Cyclical

QQU.TO
12.2%
GLCC.TO

-

Consumer Defensive

QQU.TO
7.7%
GLCC.TO

-

Healthcare

QQU.TO
4.2%
GLCC.TO

-

Industrials

QQU.TO
3.1%
GLCC.TO

-

Utilities

QQU.TO
1.4%
GLCC.TO

-

Basic Materials

QQU.TO
1.1%
GLCC.TO
100.0%

Energy

QQU.TO
0.6%
GLCC.TO

-

Financial Services

QQU.TO
0.2%
GLCC.TO

-

Real Estate

QQU.TO
0.1%
GLCC.TO

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

BetaPro NASDAQ-100 2x Daily Bull ETF

Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF

Often compared with QQU.TO:
QQU.TO vs. QLDQQU.TO vs. TQQQQQU.TO vs. QQC.TOQQU.TO vs. XQQU.TOQQU.TO vs. VCN.TOQQU.TO vs. XQQ.TOQQU.TO vs. ZQQ.TO
Often compared with GLCC.TO:
GLCC.TO vs. AMAX.TOGLCC.TO vs. DXMO.TOGLCC.TO vs. IGLDGLCC.TO vs. GLDI.LGLCC.TO vs. BCCCGLCC.TO vs. WAF.AXGLCC.TO vs. 4GLD.DE

Return for Risk

QQU.TO vs. GLCC.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
QQU.TO
QQU.TO Risk / Return Rank: 6565
Overall Rank
QQU.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7777
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QQU.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6565
Sortino Ratio Rank
QQU.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 6565
Omega Ratio Rank
QQU.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6262
Calmar Ratio Rank
QQU.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 5959
Martin Ratio Rank
GLCC.TO
GLCC.TO Risk / Return Rank: 4242
Overall Rank
GLCC.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4545
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GLCC.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 3838
Sortino Ratio Rank
GLCC.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 4444
Omega Ratio Rank
GLCC.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 4646
Calmar Ratio Rank
GLCC.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 3939
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.

QQU.TO vs. GLCC.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BetaPro NASDAQ-100 2x Daily Bull ETF (QQU.TO) and Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF (GLCC.TO). 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.

QQU.TOGLCC.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.46
1.54

+0.92

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.95
1.93

+1.02

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.38

1.28

+0.11

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.01

2.22

+0.80

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.32

5.97

+4.34

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QQU.TO vs. GLCC.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QQU.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.46, which is higher than the GLCC.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.54. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QQU.TO and GLCC.TO, 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

QQU.TOGLCC.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.46

1.54

+0.92

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.51

0.69

-0.18

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.74

0.46

+0.28

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.55

0.00

+0.55

Drawdowns

QQU.TO vs. GLCC.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QQU.TO drawdown since its inception was -78.51%, which is greater than GLCC.TO's maximum drawdown of -71.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QQU.TO and GLCC.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

QQU.TOGLCC.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-78.51%

-71.12%

-7.39%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-25.85%

-28.86%

+3.01%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-43.00%

-28.86%

-14.14%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-64.83%

-37.60%

-27.23%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-64.83%

-44.83%

-20.00%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.60%

-21.81%

+20.21%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-17.02%

-34.43%

+17.41%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

7.54%

10.70%

-3.16%

Volatility

QQU.TO vs. GLCC.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for BetaPro NASDAQ-100 2x Daily Bull ETF (QQU.TO) is 9.28%, while Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF (GLCC.TO) has a volatility of 15.10%. This indicates that QQU.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GLCC.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

QQU.TOGLCC.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

9.28%

15.10%

-5.82%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

24.30%

34.13%

-9.83%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

31.70%

41.73%

-10.03%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

44.84%

31.95%

+12.89%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

44.85%

31.95%

+12.90%

QQU.TO vs. GLCC.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

QQU.TO has a 1.46% expense ratio, which is higher than GLCC.TO's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

QQU.TO vs. GLCC.TO - Dividend Comparison

QQU.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while GLCC.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.51%.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
GLCC.TO
Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF		8.51%6.01%10.30%11.16%10.08%6.31%6.47%4.58%5.62%7.09%9.21%11.63%
QQU.TO
BetaPro NASDAQ-100 2x Daily Bull ETF		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

QQU.TO and GLCC.TO have a correlation of 0.30, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, GLCC.TO is cheaper at 0.79% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

GLCC.TO is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 1.46% for QQU.TO.

QQU.TO is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while GLCC.TO is Derivative Income. Their fees differ too: 1.46% for QQU.TO and 0.79% for GLCC.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for QQU.TO and GLCC.TO

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