QYLG vs. RYLG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

QYLG (Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF) and RYLG (Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QYLG is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the CBOE Nasdaq-100 BuyWrite V2 Index, while RYLG is a Derivative Income fund tracking the Cboe Russell 2000 Half BuyWrite Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, QYLG returned 21.40%/yr vs 12.54%/yr for RYLG. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QYLG charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for RYLG.

Performance

QYLG vs. RYLG - 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 Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF (RYLG). 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 higher than RYLG's 12.45% return.

QYLG

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

RYLG

• 1D: -0.97%
• 1M: 3.55%
• YTD: 12.45%
• 6M: 12.24%
• 1Y: 29.67%
• 3Y*: 12.54%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QYLG vs. RYLG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
QYLG Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF	14.75%	15.29%	22.02%	38.73%	-2.65%
RYLG Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF	12.45%	9.39%	10.57%	8.33%	-1.56%

Correlation

The correlation between QYLG and RYLG is 0.70, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.70
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.64
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 6, 2022	0.67

The correlation between QYLG and RYLG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.70 - a consistent structural relationship.

QYLG vs. RYLG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QYLG	RYLG
Technology	53.7%	16.8%
Communication Services	15.8%	2.5%
Consumer Cyclical	12.3%	8.4%
Consumer Defensive	7.7%	2.4%
Healthcare	4.2%	16.5%
Industrials	2.9%	17.5%
Utilities	1.4%	2.9%
Basic Materials	1.1%	4.8%
Energy	0.6%	6.2%
Financial Services	0.2%	16.0%
Real Estate	0.1%	6.2%

Return for Risk

QYLG vs. RYLG — 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

RYLG

RYLG Risk / Return Rank: 64
RYLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
RYLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
RYLG Omega Ratio Rank: 57
RYLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
RYLG Martin Ratio Rank: 74

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. RYLG - 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 Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF (RYLG). 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	RYLG	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.72	2.01	+0.71
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.68	2.83	+0.84
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	1.35	+0.14
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.92	3.64	+0.28
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	17.87	14.04	+3.84
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. RYLG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QYLG Sharpe Ratio is 2.72, which is higher than the RYLG Sharpe Ratio of 2.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QYLG and RYLG, 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	RYLG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.72	2.01	+0.71
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	0.63	+0.20

Drawdowns

QYLG vs. RYLG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QYLG drawdown since its inception was -29.98%, which is greater than RYLG's maximum drawdown of -22.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QYLG and RYLG.

Drawdown Indicators

	QYLG	RYLG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.98%	-22.37%	-7.61%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.42%	-8.18%	-0.24%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.75%	-22.37%	+1.62%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.98%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.05%	-0.97%	+0.92%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.42%	-4.13%	-2.29%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.84%	2.12%	-0.28%

Volatility

QYLG vs. RYLG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF (QYLG) is 3.10%, while Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF (RYLG) has a volatility of 3.93%. This indicates that QYLG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RYLG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QYLG	RYLG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.10%	3.93%	-0.83%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.68%	10.67%	-0.99%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.17%	14.88%	-2.71%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.98%	17.17%	+0.81%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.93%	17.17%	+0.76%

QYLG vs. RYLG - Expense Ratio Comparison

QYLG has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than RYLG's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

QYLG vs. RYLG - Dividend Comparison

QYLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 16.08%, more than RYLG's 10.34% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
QYLG Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF	16.08%	17.93%	25.27%	5.43%	6.91%	10.15%	1.44%
RYLG Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF	10.34%	10.82%	23.73%	5.78%	4.36%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QYLG and RYLG in my portfolio?

QYLG and RYLG have a correlation of 0.70, 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 RYLG?

RYLG has higher volatility (3.93%) compared to QYLG (3.10%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QYLG dropped -29.98% vs RYLG's -22.37%.

Which ETF is better, QYLG or RYLG?

On 3-year performance, QYLG leads with 21.40% vs 12.54% for RYLG. On fees, RYLG is cheaper at 0.35% 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 RYLG?

Over the 3-year period, QYLG has performed better with a 21.40% return vs 12.54%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QYLG or RYLG?

RYLG is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for QYLG.

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

QYLG has the higher dividend yield at 16.08%, compared with 10.34% for RYLG.

What is the main difference between QYLG and RYLG?

QYLG is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while RYLG is Derivative Income. QYLG tracks CBOE Nasdaq-100 BuyWrite V2 Index, while RYLG tracks Cboe Russell 2000 Half BuyWrite Index. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for QYLG and 0.35% for RYLG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QYLG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.72 vs 2.01), 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.