PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
QYLD vs. URA
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

QYLD vs. URA - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QYLD achieves a 8.73% return, which is significantly higher than URA's -4.49% return. Over the past 10 years, QYLD has underperformed URA with an annualized return of 9.65%, while URA has yielded a comparatively higher 15.21% annualized return.


QYLD

1D
0.99%
1M
0.00%
6M
6.38%
YTD
8.73%
1Y
21.85%
3Y*
13.13%
5Y*
7.94%
10Y*
9.65%
ALL TIME*
8.64%

URA

1D
4.45%
1M
-5.60%
6M
-23.39%
YTD
-4.49%
1Y
11.87%
3Y*
27.86%
5Y*
20.93%
10Y*
15.21%
ALL TIME*
-3.09%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$81.92M$78.72M$98.91M
$125.37M$115.54M$169.15M

QYLD vs. URA - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
QYLD
Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF
8.73%9.28%19.35%22.77%-19.08%10.41%8.72%22.69%-3.07%18.79%
URA
Global X Uranium ETF
-4.49%67.18%-0.58%46.25%-11.32%57.57%41.33%-3.54%-22.11%19.36%

Correlation

The correlation between QYLD and URA is 0.56, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.56

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.46

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.47

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.42

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 12, 2013

0.41

The correlation between QYLD and URA shifts across timeframes, from 0.41 (all time) to 0.56 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

QYLD vs. URA - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
QYLD
URA

Technology

61.4%
0.9%

Communication Services

12.5%

-

Consumer Cyclical

10.2%

-

Consumer Defensive

6.7%

-

Industrials

4.4%
21.4%

Healthcare

3.8%

-

Utilities

1.3%
7.1%

Basic Materials

1.1%
4.9%

Energy

0.5%
58.7%

Financial Services

0.2%

-

Real Estate

0.1%

-

Technology

QYLD
61.4%
URA
0.9%

Communication Services

QYLD
12.5%
URA

-

Consumer Cyclical

QYLD
10.2%
URA

-

Consumer Defensive

QYLD
6.7%
URA

-

Industrials

QYLD
4.4%
URA
21.4%

Healthcare

QYLD
3.8%
URA

-

Utilities

QYLD
1.3%
URA
7.1%

Basic Materials

QYLD
1.1%
URA
4.9%

Energy

QYLD
0.5%
URA
58.7%

Financial Services

QYLD
0.2%
URA

-

Real Estate

QYLD
0.1%
URA

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

QYLD vs. URA — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

QYLD
QYLD Risk / Return Rank: 8787
Overall Rank
QYLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8383
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QYLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 8383
Sortino Ratio Rank
QYLD Omega Ratio Rank: 8888
Omega Ratio Rank
QYLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 8989
Calmar Ratio Rank
QYLD Martin Ratio Rank: 9393
Martin Ratio Rank

URA
URA Risk / Return Rank: 1818
Overall Rank
URA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1616
Sharpe Ratio Rank
URA Sortino Ratio Rank: 2020
Sortino Ratio Rank
URA Omega Ratio Rank: 1919
Omega Ratio Rank
URA Calmar Ratio Rank: 1616
Calmar Ratio Rank
URA Martin Ratio Rank: 1616
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

QYLD vs. URA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD) and Global X Uranium ETF (URA). 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.


QYLDURADifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+1.73

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+2.07

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.40

1.08

+0.32

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.80

0.30

+3.49

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

17.57

0.65

+16.91

QYLD vs. URA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QYLD Sharpe Ratio is 1.95, which is higher than the URA Sharpe Ratio of 0.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QYLD and URA, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

QYLD vs. URA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QYLD drawdown since its inception was -24.75%, smaller than the maximum URA drawdown of -93.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QYLD and URA.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


QYLDURADifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-24.75%

-93.54%

+68.79%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-5.78%

-39.30%

+33.52%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.06%

-39.30%

+20.24%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-24.61%

-39.30%

+14.69%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-24.75%

-61.45%

+36.70%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.00%

-53.69%

+51.69%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.81%

-74.74%

+70.93%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.25%

18.23%

-16.98%

Volatility

QYLD vs. URA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD) is 5.17%, while Global X Uranium ETF (URA) has a volatility of 14.37%. This indicates that QYLD experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than URA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


QYLDURADifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.17%

14.37%

-9.20%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.07%

37.93%

-27.86%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.26%

52.40%

-41.14%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.05%

44.16%

-29.11%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.64%

38.14%

-22.50%

QYLD vs. URA - Expense Ratio Comparison

QYLD has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than URA's 0.69% expense ratio.


Dividends

QYLD vs. URA - Dividend Comparison

QYLD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 11.78%, more than URA's 5.11% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
QYLD
Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF
11.78%11.55%12.50%11.78%13.75%12.85%11.16%9.84%12.44%7.69%9.15%9.42%
URA
Global X Uranium ETF
5.11%4.88%2.86%6.07%0.76%5.84%1.69%1.66%0.44%2.03%7.28%1.96%

Frequently Asked Questions


QYLD and URA have a correlation of 0.56, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

URA has higher volatility (14.37%) compared to QYLD (5.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QYLD dropped -24.75% vs URA's -93.54%.

On 10-year performance, URA leads with 15.21% vs 9.65% for QYLD. On fees, QYLD is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, QYLD has been the lower-risk option at 5.17%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, URA has performed better with a 15.21% return vs 9.65%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

QYLD is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for URA.

QYLD has the higher dividend yield at 11.78%, compared with 5.11% for URA.

QYLD is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while URA is Uranium. QYLD tracks CBOE NASDAQ-100 Buy Write V2, while URA tracks Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for QYLD and 0.69% for URA.

QYLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.95 vs 0.23), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for QYLD and URA

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer