QYLG vs. QMAR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

QYLG (Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF) and QMAR (FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March) are both Nasdaq-100 funds. QYLG is passively managed, while QMAR is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, QYLG returned 12.12%/yr vs 11.30%/yr for QMAR. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QYLG charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QMAR.

Performance

QYLG vs. QMAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF (QYLG) and FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QYLG achieves a 12.38% return, which is significantly higher than QMAR's 11.40% return.

QYLG

• 1D: -2.59%
• 1M: 0.48%
• YTD: 12.38%
• 6M: 11.55%
• 1Y: 29.18%
• 3Y*: 20.15%
• 5Y*: 12.12%
• 10Y*: —

QMAR

• 1D: -1.06%
• 1M: -0.77%
• YTD: 11.40%
• 6M: 11.38%
• 1Y: 20.76%
• 3Y*: 15.65%
• 5Y*: 11.30%
• 10Y*: —

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

QYLG vs. QMAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
QYLG Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF	12.38%	15.29%	22.02%	38.73%	-26.27%	18.38%
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	11.40%	10.89%	16.11%	35.47%	-16.56%	12.87%

Correlation

The correlation between QYLG and QMAR is 0.90, 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	0.90
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.89
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.92
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 22, 2021	0.91

The correlation between QYLG and QMAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

QYLG vs. QMAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QYLG	QMAR
Technology	58.7%	58.7%
Communication Services	14.3%	14.3%
Consumer Cyclical	11.4%	11.4%
Consumer Defensive	6.4%	6.4%
Healthcare	3.7%	3.7%
Industrials	2.6%	2.6%
Utilities	1.2%	1.2%
Basic Materials	1.0%	1.0%
Energy	0.5%	0.5%
Financial Services	0.2%	0.2%
Real Estate	0.1%	0.1%

Return for Risk

QYLG vs. QMAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

QYLG

QYLG Risk / Return Rank: 71
QYLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
QYLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
QYLG Omega Ratio Rank: 70
QYLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
QYLG Martin Ratio Rank: 80

QMAR

QMAR Risk / Return Rank: 95
QMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
QMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
QMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 96
QMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
QMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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.

QYLG vs. QMAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF (QYLG) and FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR). 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.

	QYLG	QMAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.15	3.19	-1.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.89	4.77	-1.88
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.74	-0.35
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.48	6.49	-3.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.22	39.78	-24.56

QYLG vs. QMAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QYLG Sharpe Ratio is 2.15, which is lower than the QMAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QYLG and QMAR, 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

QYLG vs. QMAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QYLG drawdown since its inception was -29.98%, which is greater than QMAR's maximum drawdown of -19.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QYLG and QMAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	QYLG	QMAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.98%	-19.83%	-10.15%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.42%	-3.21%	-5.21%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.75%	-15.91%	-4.84%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.98%	-19.83%	-10.15%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.94%	-1.65%	-1.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.37%	-3.26%	-3.11%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.92%	0.52%	+1.40%

Volatility

QYLG vs. QMAR - Volatility Comparison

Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF (QYLG) has a higher volatility of 6.71% compared to FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March (QMAR) at 2.92%. This indicates that QYLG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QMAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QYLG	QMAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.71%	2.92%	+3.79%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.50%	5.59%	+5.91%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.67%	6.55%	+7.12%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.19%	14.01%	+4.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.05%	13.83%	+4.22%

QYLG vs. QMAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

QYLG has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than QMAR's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

QYLG vs. QMAR - Dividend Comparison

QYLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 16.69%, while QMAR has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
QMAR FT Cboe Vest Nasdaq-100 Buffer ETF - March	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QYLG Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF	16.69%	17.93%	25.27%	5.43%	6.91%	10.15%	1.44%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QYLG and QMAR in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, QYLG and QMAR move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, QYLG or QMAR?

QYLG has higher volatility (6.71%) compared to QMAR (2.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QYLG dropped -29.98% vs QMAR's -19.83%.

Which ETF is better, QYLG or QMAR?

On 5-year performance, QYLG leads with 12.12% vs 11.30% for QMAR. On fees, QYLG is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, QMAR has been the lower-risk option at 2.92%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QYLG or QMAR?

Over the 5-year period, QYLG has performed better with a 12.12% return vs 11.30%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QYLG or QMAR?

QYLG is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QMAR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QYLG or QMAR?

QYLG has the higher dividend yield at 16.69%, compared with 0.00% for QMAR.

What is the main difference between QYLG and QMAR?

They also come from different issuers: Global X and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for QYLG and 0.90% for QMAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QMAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.19 vs 2.15), 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.