QUSA vs. XRMI

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

QUSA (VistaShares Target 15™ USA Quality Income ETF) and XRMI (Global X S&P 500 Risk Managed Income ETF) are both Derivative Income funds. QUSA is actively managed, while XRMI is passively managed. Over the past year, QUSA returned 4.04% vs 9.53% for XRMI. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QUSA charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for XRMI.

Performance

QUSA vs. XRMI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VistaShares Target 15™ USA Quality Income ETF (QUSA) and Global X S&P 500 Risk Managed Income ETF (XRMI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QUSA achieves a 10.15% return, which is significantly higher than XRMI's 1.78% return.

QUSA

• 1D: 0.29%
• 1M: 3.95%
• YTD: 10.15%
• 6M: 10.63%
• 1Y: 4.04%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

XRMI

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 1.14%
• YTD: 1.78%
• 6M: 2.56%
• 1Y: 9.53%
• 3Y*: 6.74%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QUSA vs. XRMI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
QUSA VistaShares Target 15™ USA Quality Income ETF	10.15%	-3.15%
XRMI Global X S&P 500 Risk Managed Income ETF	1.78%	8.62%

Correlation

The correlation between QUSA and XRMI is 0.55, 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	0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 7, 2025	0.54

The correlation between QUSA and XRMI has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.54 to 0.55 - a consistent structural relationship.

QUSA vs. XRMI - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QUSA	XRMI
Technology	36.9%	35.6%
Consumer Defensive	17.7%	4.9%
Communication Services	13.3%	11.2%
Financial Services	12.8%	11.8%
Industrials	11.1%	8.3%
Healthcare	8.2%	8.5%
Basic Materials	-	1.8%
Consumer Cyclical	-	10.2%
Energy	-	3.5%
Real Estate	-	1.9%
Utilities	-	2.4%

Return for Risk

QUSA vs. XRMI — Risk / Return Rank

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

QUSA

QUSA Risk / Return Rank: 14
QUSA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
QUSA Sortino Ratio Rank: 15
QUSA Omega Ratio Rank: 15
QUSA Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
QUSA Martin Ratio Rank: 14

XRMI

XRMI Risk / Return Rank: 50
XRMI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
XRMI Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
XRMI Omega Ratio Rank: 57
XRMI Calmar Ratio Rank: 39
XRMI Martin Ratio Rank: 48

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.

QUSA vs. XRMI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VistaShares Target 15™ USA Quality Income ETF (QUSA) and Global X S&P 500 Risk Managed Income ETF (XRMI). 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.

	QUSA	XRMI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.39	1.79	-1.39
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.64	2.49	-1.86
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.08	1.35	-0.27
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.40	1.91	-1.50
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.95	7.73	-6.78
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QUSA vs. XRMI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QUSA Sharpe Ratio is 0.39, which is lower than the XRMI Sharpe Ratio of 1.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QUSA and XRMI, 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

	QUSA	XRMI	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.39	1.79	-1.39
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.60	0.37	+0.23

Drawdowns

QUSA vs. XRMI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QUSA drawdown since its inception was -10.64%, smaller than the maximum XRMI drawdown of -15.31%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QUSA and XRMI.

Drawdown Indicators

	QUSA	XRMI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.64%	-15.31%	+4.67%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.12%	-5.02%	-5.10%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-8.34%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.17%	+0.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.84%	-5.93%	+2.09%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.25%	1.23%	+3.02%

Volatility

QUSA vs. XRMI - Volatility Comparison

VistaShares Target 15™ USA Quality Income ETF (QUSA) has a higher volatility of 2.12% compared to Global X S&P 500 Risk Managed Income ETF (XRMI) at 0.86%. This indicates that QUSA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XRMI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QUSA	XRMI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.12%	0.86%	+1.26%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.15%	4.21%	+3.94%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.35%	5.36%	+4.99%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.33%	6.90%	+3.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.33%	6.90%	+3.43%

QUSA vs. XRMI - Expense Ratio Comparison

QUSA has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than XRMI's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

QUSA vs. XRMI - Dividend Comparison

QUSA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 12.43%, less than XRMI's 12.61% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
QUSA VistaShares Target 15™ USA Quality Income ETF	12.43%	6.61%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
XRMI Global X S&P 500 Risk Managed Income ETF	12.61%	12.35%	11.86%	12.62%	12.84%	2.93%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QUSA and XRMI in my portfolio?

QUSA and XRMI have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QUSA or XRMI?

QUSA has higher volatility (2.12%) compared to XRMI (0.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QUSA dropped -10.64% vs XRMI's -15.31%.

Which ETF is better, QUSA or XRMI?

On 1-year performance, XRMI leads with 9.53% vs 4.04% for QUSA. On fees, XRMI is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, XRMI has been the lower-risk option at 0.86%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QUSA or XRMI?

Over the 1-year period, XRMI has performed better with a 9.53% return vs 4.04%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QUSA or XRMI?

XRMI is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for QUSA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QUSA or XRMI?

XRMI has the higher dividend yield at 12.61%, compared with 12.43% for QUSA.

What is the main difference between QUSA and XRMI?

They also come from different issuers: VistaShares and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for QUSA and 0.60% for XRMI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XRMI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.79 vs 0.39), 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.