QYLG vs. QQQG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

QYLG (Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF) and QQQG (Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF) are both Nasdaq-100 funds. QYLG is passively managed, while QQQG is actively managed. Over the past year, QYLG returned 32.88% vs 42.60% for QQQG. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QYLG charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for QQQG.

Performance

QYLG vs. QQQG - 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 Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (QQQG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QYLG achieves a 14.75% return, which is significantly lower than QQQG's 32.43% return.

QYLG

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: 6.22%
• YTD: 14.75%
• 6M: 14.78%
• 1Y: 32.88%
• 3Y*: 21.40%
• 5Y*: 13.19%
• 10Y*: —

QQQG

• 1D: 0.88%
• 1M: 17.75%
• YTD: 32.43%
• 6M: 30.01%
• 1Y: 42.60%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QYLG vs. QQQG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QYLG Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF	14.75%	15.29%	6.74%
QQQG Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	32.43%	14.72%	2.23%

Correlation

The correlation between QYLG and QQQG is 0.88, 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	0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 21, 2024	0.88

The correlation between QYLG and QQQG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

QYLG vs. QQQG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QYLG	QQQG
Technology	53.7%	68.6%
Communication Services	15.8%	10.2%
Consumer Cyclical	12.3%	3.6%
Consumer Defensive	7.7%	1.5%
Healthcare	4.2%	12.1%
Industrials	2.9%	2.6%
Utilities	1.4%	-
Basic Materials	1.1%	-
Energy	0.6%	1.4%
Financial Services	0.2%	-
Real Estate	0.1%	-

Return for Risk

QYLG vs. QQQG — Risk / Return Rank

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

QYLG

QYLG Risk / Return Rank: 81
QYLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
QYLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
QYLG Omega Ratio Rank: 81
QYLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
QYLG Martin Ratio Rank: 85

QQQG

QQQG Risk / Return Rank: 62
QQQG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
QQQG Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
QQQG Omega Ratio Rank: 59
QQQG Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
QQQG Martin Ratio Rank: 62

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. QQQG - 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 Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (QQQG). 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	QQQG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.72	2.18	+0.54
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.68	2.88	+0.79
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	1.37	+0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.92	3.10	+0.82
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.87	11.16	+6.71
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QYLG vs. QQQG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QYLG Sharpe Ratio is 2.72, which is comparable to the QQQG Sharpe Ratio of 2.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QYLG and QQQG, 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

	QYLG	QQQG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.72	2.18	+0.54
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.74	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.83	1.20	-0.37

Drawdowns

QYLG vs. QQQG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QYLG drawdown since its inception was -29.98%, which is greater than QQQG's maximum drawdown of -23.61%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QYLG and QQQG.

Drawdown Indicators

	QYLG	QQQG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.98%	-23.61%	-6.37%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.42%	-13.79%	+5.37%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.75%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.98%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.05%	0.00%	-0.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.42%	-3.60%	-2.82%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.84%	3.83%	-1.99%

Volatility

QYLG vs. QQQG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF (QYLG) is 3.10%, while Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (QQQG) has a volatility of 5.26%. This indicates that QYLG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QQQG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QYLG	QQQG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.10%	5.26%	-2.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.68%	16.03%	-6.35%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.17%	19.65%	-7.48%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.98%	23.41%	-5.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.93%	23.41%	-5.48%

QYLG vs. QQQG - Expense Ratio Comparison

QYLG has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than QQQG's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

QYLG vs. QQQG - Dividend Comparison

QYLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 16.08%, more than QQQG's 0.04% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
QQQG Pacer Nasdaq 100 Top 50 Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	0.04%	0.06%	0.11%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	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

Can I hold both QYLG and QQQG in my portfolio?

QYLG and QQQG have a correlation of 0.88, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QYLG or QQQG?

QQQG has higher volatility (5.26%) compared to QYLG (3.10%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QYLG dropped -29.98% vs QQQG's -23.61%.

Which ETF is better, QYLG or QQQG?

On 1-year performance, QQQG leads with 42.60% vs 32.88% for QYLG. On fees, QQQG is cheaper at 0.49% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, QYLG or QQQG?

Over the 1-year period, QQQG has performed better with a 42.60% return vs 32.88%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QYLG or QQQG?

QQQG is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for QYLG.

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

QYLG has the higher dividend yield at 16.08%, compared with 0.04% for QQQG.

What is the main difference between QYLG and QQQG?

They also come from different issuers: Global X and Pacer. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for QYLG and 0.49% for QQQG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QYLG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.72 vs 2.18), 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.