QTR vs. GDMA

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Global X NASDAQ 100 Tail Risk ETF (QTR) and Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA).

QTR and GDMA are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. QTR is a passively managed fund by Global X that tracks the performance of the NASDAQ-100 Quarterly Protective Put 90 Index. It was launched on Aug 25, 2021. GDMA is an actively managed fund by Gadsden. It was launched on Nov 14, 2018.

Performance

QTR vs. GDMA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X NASDAQ 100 Tail Risk ETF (QTR) and Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

QTR vs. GDMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
QTR Global X NASDAQ 100 Tail Risk ETF	-7.25%	14.52%	21.46%	45.53%	-29.94%	4.16%
GDMA Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF	5.56%	25.29%	7.44%	1.72%	-2.08%	2.38%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QTR achieves a -7.25% return, which is significantly lower than GDMA's 5.56% return.

QTR

• 1D: 1.82%
• 1M: -5.65%
• YTD: -7.25%
• 6M: -6.08%
• 1Y: 16.96%
• 3Y*: 17.17%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GDMA

• 1D: -0.16%
• 1M: -5.27%
• YTD: 5.56%
• 6M: 8.64%
• 1Y: 30.39%
• 3Y*: 14.82%
• 5Y*: 7.72%
• 10Y*: —

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

QTR vs. GDMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

QTR has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than GDMA's 0.77% expense ratio.

GDMA

Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF

QTR

Global X NASDAQ 100 Tail Risk ETF

Return for Risk

QTR vs. GDMA — Risk / Return Rank

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

QTR

QTR Risk / Return Rank: 57
QTR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
QTR Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
QTR Omega Ratio Rank: 54
QTR Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
QTR Martin Ratio Rank: 52

GDMA

GDMA Risk / Return Rank: 96
GDMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
GDMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
GDMA Omega Ratio Rank: 96
GDMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
GDMA Martin Ratio Rank: 94

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.

QTR vs. GDMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X NASDAQ 100 Tail Risk ETF (QTR) and Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA). 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.

	QTR	GDMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.04	2.52	-1.48
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.56	3.29	-1.73
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.48	-0.28
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.36	4.72	-3.36
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	4.83	14.01	-9.17
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QTR vs. GDMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QTR Sharpe Ratio is 1.04, which is lower than the GDMA Sharpe Ratio of 2.52. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QTR and GDMA, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	QTR	GDMA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.04	2.52	-1.48
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.82	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.39	0.85	-0.46

Correlation

The correlation between QTR and GDMA is 0.28, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.

Dividends

QTR vs. GDMA - Dividend Comparison

QTR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 20.24%, more than GDMA's 2.65% yield.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
QTR Global X NASDAQ 100 Tail Risk ETF	20.24%	18.77%	0.50%	0.53%	0.36%	1.90%	0.00%	0.00%
GDMA Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF	2.65%	2.79%	2.32%	4.14%	1.18%	2.10%	0.62%	3.17%

Drawdowns

QTR vs. GDMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QTR drawdown since its inception was -31.72%, which is greater than GDMA's maximum drawdown of -16.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QTR and GDMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	QTR	GDMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.72%	-16.66%	-15.06%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.29%	-6.44%	-5.85%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-12.74%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.69%	-6.06%	-4.63%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.10%	-3.78%	-5.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.45%	2.17%	+1.28%

Volatility

QTR vs. GDMA - Volatility Comparison

Global X NASDAQ 100 Tail Risk ETF (QTR) has a higher volatility of 4.90% compared to Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA) at 4.01%. This indicates that QTR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GDMA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QTR	GDMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.90%	4.01%	+0.89%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.80%	9.88%	+0.92%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.44%	12.12%	+4.32%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.16%	9.44%	+8.72%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.16%	10.82%	+7.34%