QTR vs. QQQG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

QTR (Global X NASDAQ 100 Tail Risk ETF) and QQQG (Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF) are both Nasdaq-100 funds. QTR is passively managed, while QQQG is actively managed. Over the past year, QTR returned 33.76% vs 42.60% for QQQG. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QTR charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for QQQG.

Performance

QTR vs. QQQG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X NASDAQ 100 Tail Risk ETF (QTR) and Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (QQQG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QTR achieves a 17.64% return, which is significantly lower than QQQG's 32.43% return.

QTR

• 1D: -0.24%
• 1M: 10.52%
• YTD: 17.64%
• 6M: 15.72%
• 1Y: 33.76%
• 3Y*: 22.93%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QQQG

• 1D: 0.88%
• 1M: 17.75%
• YTD: 32.43%
• 6M: 30.01%
• 1Y: 42.60%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QTR vs. QQQG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QTR Global X NASDAQ 100 Tail Risk ETF	17.64%	14.52%	5.22%
QQQG Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	32.43%	14.72%	2.23%

Correlation

The correlation between QTR and QQQG is 0.88, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 21, 2024	0.88

The correlation between QTR and QQQG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

QTR vs. QQQG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QTR	QQQG
Technology	53.8%	68.6%
Communication Services	15.8%	10.2%
Consumer Cyclical	12.2%	3.6%
Consumer Defensive	7.7%	1.5%
Healthcare	4.2%	12.1%
Industrials	2.8%	2.6%
Utilities	1.4%	-
Basic Materials	1.1%	-
Energy	0.6%	1.4%
Financial Services	0.2%	-
Real Estate	0.1%	-

Return for Risk

QTR vs. QQQG — Risk / Return Rank

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

QTR

QTR Risk / Return Rank: 64
QTR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
QTR Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
QTR Omega Ratio Rank: 68
QTR Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
QTR Martin Ratio Rank: 55

QQQG

QQQG Risk / Return Rank: 62
QQQG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
QQQG Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
QQQG Omega Ratio Rank: 59
QQQG Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
QQQG Martin Ratio Rank: 62

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. QQQG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X NASDAQ 100 Tail Risk ETF (QTR) and Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (QQQG). 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	QQQG	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.40	2.18	+0.22
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.22	2.88	+0.34
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.37	+0.04
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.76	3.10	-0.34
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	9.47	11.16	-1.69
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. QQQG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QTR Sharpe Ratio is 2.40, which is comparable to the QQQG Sharpe Ratio of 2.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QTR and QQQG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	QTR	QQQG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.40	2.18	+0.22
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.68	1.20	-0.52

Drawdowns

QTR vs. QQQG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QTR drawdown since its inception was -31.72%, which is greater than QQQG's maximum drawdown of -23.61%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QTR and QQQG.

Drawdown Indicators

	QTR	QQQG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.72%	-23.61%	-8.11%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.29%	-13.79%	+1.50%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.99%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.24%	0.00%	-0.24%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.84%	-3.60%	-5.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.57%	3.83%	-0.26%

Volatility

QTR vs. QQQG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X NASDAQ 100 Tail Risk ETF (QTR) is 4.52%, while Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (QQQG) has a volatility of 5.26%. This indicates that QTR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QQQG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QTR	QQQG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.52%	5.26%	-0.74%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.68%	16.03%	-5.35%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.14%	19.65%	-5.51%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.10%	23.41%	-5.31%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.10%	23.41%	-5.31%

QTR vs. QQQG - Expense Ratio Comparison

QTR has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than QQQG's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

QTR vs. QQQG - Dividend Comparison

QTR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 15.96%, more than QQQG's 0.04% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
QQQG Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	0.04%	0.06%	0.11%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QTR Global X NASDAQ 100 Tail Risk ETF	15.96%	18.77%	0.50%	0.53%	0.36%	1.90%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QTR and QQQG in my portfolio?

QTR and QQQG have a correlation of 0.88, 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 QQQG?

QQQG has higher volatility (5.26%) compared to QTR (4.52%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QTR dropped -31.72% vs QQQG's -23.61%.

Which ETF is better, QTR or QQQG?

On 1-year performance, QQQG leads with 42.60% vs 33.76% for QTR. On fees, QQQG is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, QTR has been the lower-risk option at 4.52%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QTR or QQQG?

Over the 1-year period, QQQG has performed better with a 42.60% return vs 33.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QTR or QQQG?

QQQG is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for QTR.

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

QTR has the higher dividend yield at 15.96%, compared with 0.04% for QQQG.

What is the main difference between QTR and QQQG?

They also come from different issuers: Global X and Pacer. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for QTR and 0.49% for QQQG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QTR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.40 vs 2.18), 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.