QYLD vs. FHLC

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

QYLD (Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF) and FHLC (Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QYLD is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the CBOE NASDAQ-100 Buy Write V2, while FHLC is a Health & Biotech Equities fund tracking the MSCI USA IMI Health Care Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, QYLD returned 9.77%/yr vs 9.56%/yr for FHLC. A 0.56 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QYLD charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for FHLC.

Performance

QYLD vs. FHLC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD) and Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QYLD achieves a 7.05% return, which is significantly higher than FHLC's -1.04% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with QYLD having a 9.77% annualized return and FHLC not far behind at 9.56%.

QYLD

• 1D: 1.07%
• 1M: 0.23%
• YTD: 7.05%
• 6M: 8.87%
• 1Y: 22.45%
• 3Y*: 13.42%
• 5Y*: 8.24%
• 10Y*: 9.77%

FHLC

• 1D: -0.23%
• 1M: 5.45%
• YTD: -1.04%
• 6M: 0.82%
• 1Y: 16.51%
• 3Y*: 7.13%
• 5Y*: 4.80%
• 10Y*: 9.56%

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

QYLD vs. FHLC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
QYLD Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF	7.05%	9.28%	19.35%	22.77%	-19.08%	10.41%	8.72%	22.69%	-3.07%	18.79%
FHLC Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF	-1.04%	15.42%	2.48%	2.58%	-5.55%	20.39%	18.13%	21.94%	4.71%	23.34%

Correlation

The correlation between QYLD and FHLC is 0.27, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.27
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.35
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.50
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 13, 2013	0.56

Over the past year, the correlation between QYLD and FHLC has dropped to 0.27 - well below their long-term average of 0.56, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

QYLD vs. FHLC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QYLD	FHLC
Technology	53.8%	0.0%
Communication Services	15.8%	-
Consumer Cyclical	12.3%	-
Consumer Defensive	7.7%	-
Healthcare	4.2%	99.6%
Industrials	2.8%	0.0%
Utilities	1.4%	-
Basic Materials	1.1%	-
Energy	0.6%	-
Financial Services	0.2%	0.1%
Real Estate	0.1%	-

Return for Risk

QYLD vs. FHLC — Risk / Return Rank

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

QYLD

QYLD Risk / Return Rank: 89
QYLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
QYLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
QYLD Omega Ratio Rank: 92
QYLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
QYLD Martin Ratio Rank: 95

FHLC

FHLC Risk / Return Rank: 34
FHLC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
FHLC Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
FHLC Omega Ratio Rank: 33
FHLC Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
FHLC Martin Ratio Rank: 30

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. FHLC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD) and Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC). 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.

	QYLD	FHLC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.56	1.14	+1.42
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.53	1.78	+1.75
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.57	1.20	+0.37
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.54	1.60	+2.94
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	26.31	4.00	+22.31
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QYLD vs. FHLC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QYLD Sharpe Ratio is 2.56, which is higher than the FHLC Sharpe Ratio of 1.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QYLD and FHLC, 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

	QYLD	FHLC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.56	1.14	+1.42
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.56	0.32	+0.24
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.63	0.57	+0.06
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.59	0.62	-0.03

Drawdowns

QYLD vs. FHLC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QYLD drawdown since its inception was -24.75%, smaller than the maximum FHLC drawdown of -28.76%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QYLD and FHLC.

Drawdown Indicators

	QYLD	FHLC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.75%	-28.76%	+4.01%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.97%	-10.38%	+5.41%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.06%	-16.87%	-2.19%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.61%	-17.73%	-6.88%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-24.75%	-28.76%	+4.01%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.83%	-4.18%	+3.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.83%	-5.19%	+1.36%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.86%	4.14%	-3.28%

Volatility

QYLD vs. FHLC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD) is 2.86%, while Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC) has a volatility of 4.86%. This indicates that QYLD experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FHLC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QYLD	FHLC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.86%	4.86%	-2.00%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.44%	10.49%	-3.05%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.84%	14.62%	-5.78%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.73%	15.02%	-0.29%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.51%	16.84%	-1.33%

QYLD vs. FHLC - Expense Ratio Comparison

QYLD has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than FHLC's 0.08% expense ratio.

Dividends

QYLD vs. FHLC - Dividend Comparison

QYLD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 11.55%, more than FHLC's 1.38% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FHLC Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF	1.38%	1.40%	1.51%	1.40%	1.30%	1.16%	1.45%	1.18%	1.38%	1.38%	1.40%	2.07%
QYLD Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF	11.55%	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 FHLC in my portfolio?

QYLD and FHLC have a correlation of 0.27, 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 FHLC?

FHLC has higher volatility (4.86%) compared to QYLD (2.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QYLD dropped -24.75% vs FHLC's -28.76%.

Which ETF is better, QYLD or FHLC?

On 10-year performance, QYLD leads with 9.77% vs 9.56% for FHLC. On fees, FHLC is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, QYLD has been the lower-risk option at 2.86%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QYLD or FHLC?

Over the 10-year period, QYLD has performed better with a 9.77% return vs 9.56%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QYLD or FHLC?

FHLC is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for QYLD.

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

QYLD has the higher dividend yield at 11.55%, compared with 1.38% for FHLC.

What is the main difference between QYLD and FHLC?

QYLD is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while FHLC is Health & Biotech Equities. QYLD tracks CBOE NASDAQ-100 Buy Write V2, while FHLC tracks MSCI USA IMI Health Care Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for QYLD and 0.08% for FHLC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QYLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.56 vs 1.14), 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.