QYLG vs. QQQA
QYLG (Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF) and QQQA (ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dorsey Wright Momentum ETF) are both Nasdaq-100 funds - QYLG tracks the CBOE Nasdaq-100 BuyWrite V2 Index while QQQA tracks the NASDAQ-100 Dorsey Wright Momentum Index - Benchmark TR Gross. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, QYLG returned 13.19%/yr vs 14.74%/yr for QQQA. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QYLG charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for QQQA.
Performance
QYLG vs. QQQA - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, QYLG achieves a 14.75% return, which is significantly lower than QQQA's 65.37% return.
QYLG
- 1D
- -0.05%
- 1M
- 6.22%
- YTD
- 14.75%
- 6M
- 14.78%
- 1Y
- 32.88%
- 3Y*
- 21.40%
- 5Y*
- 13.19%
- 10Y*
- —
QQQA
- 1D
- 2.20%
- 1M
- 23.31%
- YTD
- 65.37%
- 6M
- 67.98%
- 1Y
- 88.43%
- 3Y*
- 34.58%
- 5Y*
- 14.74%
- 10Y*
- —
QYLG vs. QQQA - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QYLG Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF | 14.75% | 15.29% | 22.02% | 38.73% | -26.27% | 14.50% |
QQQA ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dorsey Wright Momentum ETF | 65.37% | 9.87% | 16.17% | 24.98% | -29.08% | 8.43% |
Correlation
The correlation between QYLG and QQQA is 0.83, 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 | 0.83 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.85 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.86 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 21, 2021 | 0.86 |
The correlation between QYLG and QQQA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.
QYLG vs. QQQA - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
QYLG
QQQA
Technology
Communication Services
Consumer Cyclical
Consumer Defensive
-
Healthcare
Industrials
-
Utilities
-
Basic Materials
-
Energy
Financial Services
-
Real Estate
-
Technology
QYLG
QQQA
Communication Services
QYLG
QQQA
Consumer Cyclical
QYLG
QQQA
Consumer Defensive
QYLG
QQQA
-
Healthcare
QYLG
QQQA
Industrials
QYLG
QQQA
-
Utilities
QYLG
QQQA
-
Basic Materials
QYLG
QQQA
-
Energy
QYLG
QQQA
Financial Services
QYLG
QQQA
-
Real Estate
QYLG
QQQA
-
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
QYLG vs. QQQA — Risk / Return Rank
QYLG
QQQA
QYLG vs. QQQA - 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 ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dorsey Wright Momentum ETF (QQQA). 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.
| QYLG | QQQA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.70 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.32 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.49 | 1.54 | -0.05 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.92 | 6.11 | -2.19 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 17.87 | 22.85 | -4.98 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| QYLG | QQQA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.72 | 3.41 | -0.70 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.74 | 0.57 | +0.16 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.83 | 0.59 | +0.24 |
Drawdowns
QYLG vs. QQQA - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum QYLG drawdown since its inception was -29.98%, smaller than the maximum QQQA drawdown of -38.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QYLG and QQQA.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| QYLG | QQQA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -29.98% | -38.44% | +8.46% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -8.42% | -14.54% | +6.12% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -20.75% | -30.84% | +10.09% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -29.98% | -38.44% | +8.46% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.05% | 0.00% | -0.05% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.42% | -15.68% | +9.26% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.84% | 3.88% | -2.04% |
Volatility
QYLG vs. QQQA - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF (QYLG) is 3.10%, while ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dorsey Wright Momentum ETF (QQQA) has a volatility of 10.17%. This indicates that QYLG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QQQA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| QYLG | QQQA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.10% | 10.17% | -7.07% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 9.68% | 22.18% | -12.50% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 12.17% | 26.05% | -13.88% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.98% | 25.83% | -7.85% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.93% | 25.77% | -7.84% |
QYLG vs. QQQA - Expense Ratio Comparison
QYLG has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than QQQA's 0.58% expense ratio.
Dividends
QYLG vs. QQQA - Dividend Comparison
QYLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 16.08%, more than QQQA's 0.06% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QQQA ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dorsey Wright Momentum ETF | 0.06% | 0.10% | 0.09% | 0.34% | 0.28% | 0.10% | 0.00% |
QYLG Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF | 16.08% | 17.93% | 25.27% | 5.43% | 6.91% | 10.15% | 1.44% |
Frequently Asked Questions
QYLG and QQQA have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
QQQA has higher volatility (10.17%) compared to QYLG (3.10%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QYLG dropped -29.98% vs QQQA's -38.44%.
On 5-year performance, QQQA leads with 14.74% vs 13.19% for QYLG. On fees, QQQA is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, QYLG has been the lower-risk option at 3.10%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, QQQA has performed better with a 14.74% return vs 13.19%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
QQQA is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for QYLG.
QYLG has the higher dividend yield at 16.08%, compared with 0.06% for QQQA.
QYLG tracks CBOE Nasdaq-100 BuyWrite V2 Index, while QQQA tracks NASDAQ-100 Dorsey Wright Momentum Index - Benchmark TR Gross. They also come from different issuers: Global X and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for QYLG and 0.58% for QQQA.
QQQA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.41 vs 2.72), 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.
Find the right allocation for QYLG and QQQA
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