QYLG vs. URA

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

QYLG (Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF) and URA (Global X Uranium ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QYLG is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the CBOE Nasdaq-100 BuyWrite V2 Index, while URA is a Uranium fund tracking the Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, QYLG returned 11.09%/yr vs 18.90%/yr for URA. Their 0.46 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. QYLG charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for URA.

Performance

QYLG vs. URA - 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 Uranium ETF (URA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QYLG achieves a 10.36% return, which is significantly higher than URA's -8.57% return.

QYLG

• 1D: 0.84%
• 1M: -2.12%
• 6M: 8.81%
• YTD: 10.36%
• 1Y: 23.14%
• 3Y*: 17.42%
• 5Y*: 11.09%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.87%

URA

• 1D: -1.64%
• 1M: -9.62%
• 6M: -28.95%
• YTD: -8.57%
• 1Y: 7.10%
• 3Y*: 25.57%
• 5Y*: 18.90%
• 10Y*: 14.85%
• ALL TIME*: -3.36%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
QYLG Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF	$1.64M	$1.48M	$1.35M
URA Global X Uranium ETF	$122.45M	$118.35M	$170.14M

QYLG vs. URA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
QYLG Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF	10.36%	15.29%	22.02%	38.73%	-26.27%	18.29%	13.88%
URA Global X Uranium ETF	-8.57%	67.18%	-0.58%	46.25%	-11.32%	57.57%	34.79%

Correlation

The correlation between QYLG and URA is 0.61, 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.	0.61
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.49
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.49
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 22, 2020	0.46

The correlation between QYLG and URA shifts across timeframes, from 0.46 (all time) to 0.61 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

QYLG vs. URA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QYLG	URA
Technology	60.8%	0.9%
Communication Services	13.1%	-
Consumer Cyclical	10.7%	-
Consumer Defensive	6.3%	-
Healthcare	3.6%	-
Industrials	2.7%	21.4%
Utilities	1.2%	7.1%
Basic Materials	1.1%	4.9%
Energy	0.5%	58.7%
Financial Services	0.2%	-
Real Estate	0.1%	-

Return for Risk

QYLG vs. URA — Risk / Return Rank

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

QYLG

QYLG Risk / Return Rank: 66
QYLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
QYLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
QYLG Omega Ratio Rank: 59
QYLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
QYLG Martin Ratio Rank: 75

URA

URA Risk / Return Rank: 14
URA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
URA Sortino Ratio Rank: 16
URA Omega Ratio Rank: 16
URA Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
URA Martin Ratio Rank: 12

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.

QYLG vs. URA - 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 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.

	QYLG	URA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.43	0.08	+1.36
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.02	0.49	+1.53
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.06	+0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.55	0.10	+2.45
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.39	0.22	+9.16

QYLG vs. URA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QYLG Sharpe Ratio is 1.43, which is higher than the URA Sharpe Ratio of 0.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QYLG 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.

Drawdowns

QYLG vs. URA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QYLG drawdown since its inception was -29.98%, smaller than the maximum URA drawdown of -93.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QYLG and URA.

Drawdown Indicators

	QYLG	URA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.98%	-93.54%	+63.56%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.42%	-39.30%	+30.88%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.75%	-39.30%	+18.55%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.98%	-39.30%	+9.32%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-61.45%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.69%	-55.66%	+50.97%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.32%	-74.75%	+68.43%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.29%	18.11%	-15.82%

Volatility

QYLG vs. URA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF (QYLG) is 5.92%, while Global X Uranium ETF (URA) has a volatility of 13.54%. This indicates that QYLG 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.

Volatility by Period

	QYLG	URA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.92%	13.54%	-7.62%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.85%	38.35%	-25.50%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.01%	52.24%	-37.23%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.38%	44.10%	-25.72%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.08%	38.10%	-20.02%

QYLG vs. URA - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

QYLG vs. URA - Dividend Comparison

QYLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 17.61%, more than URA's 5.33% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
QYLG Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF	17.61%	17.93%	25.27%	5.43%	6.91%	10.15%	1.44%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
URA Global X Uranium ETF	5.33%	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

Can I hold both QYLG and URA in my portfolio?

QYLG and URA have a correlation of 0.61, 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 URA?

URA has higher volatility (13.54%) compared to QYLG (5.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QYLG dropped -29.98% vs URA's -93.54%.

Which ETF is better, QYLG or URA?

On 5-year performance, URA leads with 18.90% vs 11.09% for QYLG. On fees, QYLG is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, QYLG has been the lower-risk option at 5.92%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QYLG or URA?

Over the 5-year period, URA has performed better with a 18.90% return vs 11.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QYLG or URA?

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

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

QYLG has the higher dividend yield at 17.61%, compared with 5.33% for URA.

What is the main difference between QYLG and URA?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QYLG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.43 vs 0.08), 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.