QTR vs. GDMA

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

QTR (Global X NASDAQ 100 Tail Risk ETF) and GDMA (Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QTR is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Quarterly Protective Put 90 Index, while GDMA is a Hedge Fund fund actively managed by Gadsden. QTR is passively managed, while GDMA is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, QTR returned 20.74%/yr vs 16.68%/yr for GDMA. At a 0.31 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. QTR charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.77%/yr for GDMA.

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.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QTR achieves a 14.00% return, which is significantly higher than GDMA's 10.22% return.

QTR

• 1D: -2.27%
• 1M: 0.45%
• YTD: 14.00%
• 6M: 12.63%
• 1Y: 28.74%
• 3Y*: 20.74%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GDMA

• 1D: -3.51%
• 1M: 2.90%
• YTD: 10.22%
• 6M: 9.52%
• 1Y: 30.24%
• 3Y*: 16.68%
• 5Y*: 8.19%
• 10Y*: —

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

QTR vs. GDMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
QTR Global X NASDAQ 100 Tail Risk ETF	14.00%	14.52%	21.46%	45.53%	-29.94%	4.16%
GDMA Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF	10.22%	25.29%	7.44%	1.72%	-2.08%	1.23%

Correlation

The correlation between QTR and GDMA is 0.63, 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	0.63
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.61
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 26, 2021	0.31

Over the past year, QTR and GDMA have become more correlated (0.63) than their long-term average of 0.31, meaning their price movements have been converging.

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: 53
QTR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
QTR Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
QTR Omega Ratio Rank: 55
QTR Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
QTR Martin Ratio Rank: 49

GDMA

GDMA Risk / Return Rank: 67
GDMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
GDMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
GDMA Omega Ratio Rank: 69
GDMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
GDMA Martin Ratio Rank: 63

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.

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.

	QTR	GDMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.81	2.00	-0.19
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.44	2.56	-0.12
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.39	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.35	4.03	-1.68
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.86	10.70	-2.84

QTR vs. GDMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QTR Sharpe Ratio is 1.81, which is comparable to the GDMA Sharpe Ratio of 2.00. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QTR and GDMA, 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

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%	-7.53%	-4.76%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.99%	-7.53%	-11.46%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-12.74%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.33%	-3.51%	+0.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.77%	-3.78%	-4.99%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.66%	2.83%	+0.83%

Volatility

QTR vs. GDMA - Volatility Comparison

Global X NASDAQ 100 Tail Risk ETF (QTR) and Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA) have volatilities of 8.36% and 8.71%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. 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	8.36%	8.71%	-0.35%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.86%	12.85%	+0.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.96%	15.24%	+0.72%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.35%	10.21%	+8.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.35%	11.32%	+7.03%

QTR vs. GDMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

QTR vs. GDMA - Dividend Comparison

QTR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 16.47%, more than GDMA's 2.53% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
GDMA Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF	2.53%	2.79%	2.32%	4.14%	1.18%	2.10%	0.62%	3.17%
QTR Global X NASDAQ 100 Tail Risk ETF	16.47%	18.77%	0.50%	0.53%	0.36%	1.90%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QTR and GDMA in my portfolio?

QTR and GDMA have a correlation of 0.63, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QTR or GDMA?

GDMA has higher volatility (8.71%) compared to QTR (8.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QTR dropped -31.72% vs GDMA's -16.66%.

Which ETF is better, QTR or GDMA?

On 3-year performance, QTR leads with 20.74% vs 16.68% for GDMA. On fees, QTR is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, QTR has been the lower-risk option at 8.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QTR or GDMA?

Over the 3-year period, QTR has performed better with a 20.74% return vs 16.68%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QTR or GDMA?

QTR is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.77% for GDMA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QTR or GDMA?

QTR has the higher dividend yield at 16.47%, compared with 2.53% for GDMA.

What is the main difference between QTR and GDMA?

QTR is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while GDMA is Hedge Fund. They also come from different issuers: Global X and Gadsden. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for QTR and 0.77% for GDMA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GDMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.00 vs 1.81), 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.