QYLD vs. DBMF

Last updated Jun 16, 2026

QYLD (Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF) and DBMF (iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QYLD is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the CBOE NASDAQ-100 Buy Write V2, while DBMF is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by iM Global Partners. QYLD is passively managed, while DBMF is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, QYLD returned 8.41%/yr vs 8.18%/yr for DBMF. At a 0.15 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. QYLD charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for DBMF.

Performance

QYLD vs. DBMF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD) and iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QYLD achieves a 8.36% return, which is significantly lower than DBMF's 10.48% return.

QYLD

• 1D: 0.66%
• 1M: 2.81%
• YTD: 8.36%
• 6M: 10.14%
• 1Y: 23.80%
• 3Y*: 13.95%
• 5Y*: 8.41%
• 10Y*: 9.92%

DBMF

• 1D: 0.19%
• 1M: -1.12%
• YTD: 10.48%
• 6M: 11.61%
• 1Y: 27.18%
• 3Y*: 9.37%
• 5Y*: 8.18%
• 10Y*: —

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

QYLD vs. DBMF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
QYLD Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF	8.36%	9.28%	19.35%	22.77%	-19.08%	10.41%	8.72%	11.46%
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	10.48%	13.85%	7.24%	-8.94%	21.61%	11.49%	1.80%	10.51%

Correlation

The correlation between QYLD and DBMF is 0.37, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.37
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.27
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.09
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 8, 2019	0.15

Over the past year, QYLD and DBMF have become more correlated (0.37) than their long-term average of 0.15, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

QYLD vs. DBMF — Risk / Return Rank

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

QYLD

QYLD Risk / Return Rank: 91
QYLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
QYLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
QYLD Omega Ratio Rank: 93
QYLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
QYLD Martin Ratio Rank: 95

DBMF

DBMF Risk / Return Rank: 82
DBMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
DBMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
DBMF Omega Ratio Rank: 86
DBMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
DBMF Martin Ratio Rank: 86

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.

QYLD vs. DBMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD) and iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF). 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.

	QYLD	DBMF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.61	2.21	+0.39
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.62	2.91	+0.71
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.58	1.47	+0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.81	4.48	+0.34
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	27.11	16.18	+10.92

QYLD vs. DBMF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QYLD Sharpe Ratio is 2.61, which is comparable to the DBMF Sharpe Ratio of 2.21. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QYLD and DBMF, 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

QYLD vs. DBMF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QYLD drawdown since its inception was -24.75%, which is greater than DBMF's maximum drawdown of -20.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QYLD and DBMF.

Drawdown Indicators

	QYLD	DBMF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.75%	-20.39%	-4.36%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.97%	-6.10%	+1.13%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.06%	-15.60%	-3.46%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.61%	-20.39%	-4.22%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-24.75%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-1.72%	+1.72%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.83%	-6.56%	+2.73%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.88%	1.68%	-0.80%

Volatility

QYLD vs. DBMF - Volatility Comparison

Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD) has a higher volatility of 3.87% compared to iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) at 2.68%. This indicates that QYLD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DBMF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QYLD	DBMF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.87%	2.68%	+1.19%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.86%	10.00%	-2.14%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.19%	12.37%	-3.18%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.77%	12.55%	+2.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.53%	12.41%	+3.12%

QYLD vs. DBMF - Expense Ratio Comparison

QYLD has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than DBMF's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

QYLD vs. DBMF - Dividend Comparison

QYLD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 11.41%, more than DBMF's 5.18% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	5.18%	5.91%	5.75%	2.91%	7.72%	10.38%	0.86%	9.35%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QYLD Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF	11.41%	11.55%	12.50%	11.78%	13.75%	12.85%	11.16%	9.84%	12.44%	7.69%	9.15%	9.42%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QYLD and DBMF in my portfolio?

QYLD and DBMF have a correlation of 0.37, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QYLD or DBMF?

QYLD has higher volatility (3.87%) compared to DBMF (2.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QYLD dropped -24.75% vs DBMF's -20.39%.

Which ETF is better, QYLD or DBMF?

On 5-year performance, QYLD leads with 8.41% vs 8.18% for DBMF. On fees, QYLD is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, DBMF has been the lower-risk option at 2.68%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QYLD or DBMF?

Over the 5-year period, QYLD has performed better with a 8.41% return vs 8.18%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QYLD or DBMF?

QYLD is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for DBMF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QYLD or DBMF?

QYLD has the higher dividend yield at 11.41%, compared with 5.18% for DBMF.

What is the main difference between QYLD and DBMF?

QYLD is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while DBMF is Systematic Trend. They also come from different issuers: Global X and iM Global Partners. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for QYLD and 0.85% for DBMF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QYLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.61 vs 2.21), 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.