QYLP.L vs. COPG.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

QYLP.L (Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP) and COPG.L (Global X Copper Miners UCITS ETF USD Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - QYLP.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the Cboe Nasdaq-100 BuyWrite Index, while COPG.L is a Commodity Producers Equities fund tracking the Solactive Global Copper Miners Total Return Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, QYLP.L returned 6.77%/yr vs 34.51%/yr for COPG.L. At a 0.14 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. QYLP.L charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for COPG.L.

Performance

QYLP.L vs. COPG.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP (QYLP.L) and Global X Copper Miners UCITS ETF USD Acc (COPG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QYLP.L achieves a 4.67% return, which is significantly lower than COPG.L's 24.91% return.

QYLP.L

• 1D: -0.91%
• 1M: 2.04%
• YTD: 4.67%
• 6M: 5.64%
• 1Y: 17.92%
• 3Y*: 6.77%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

COPG.L

• 1D: -0.95%
• 1M: 15.82%
• YTD: 24.91%
• 6M: 35.76%
• 1Y: 119.81%
• 3Y*: 34.51%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QYLP.L vs. COPG.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
QYLP.L Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP	4.67%	-4.48%	21.40%	14.93%	-18.74%
COPG.L Global X Copper Miners UCITS ETF USD Acc	24.91%	82.05%	3.66%	3.03%	4.44%

Correlation

The correlation between QYLP.L and COPG.L is 0.14, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.14
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.15
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 23, 2022	0.14

Return for Risk

QYLP.L vs. COPG.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

QYLP.L

QYLP.L Risk / Return Rank: 71
QYLP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
QYLP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
QYLP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 65
QYLP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
QYLP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 75

COPG.L

COPG.L Risk / Return Rank: 82
COPG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
COPG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
COPG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 76
COPG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
COPG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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.

QYLP.L vs. COPG.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP (QYLP.L) and Global X Copper Miners UCITS ETF USD Acc (COPG.L). 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.

	QYLP.L	COPG.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.09	3.14	-1.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.03	3.58	-0.55
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.44	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.76	4.53	+0.22
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.09	14.57	-0.48
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QYLP.L vs. COPG.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QYLP.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.09, which is lower than the COPG.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QYLP.L and COPG.L, 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

	QYLP.L	COPG.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.09	3.14	-1.05
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.24	0.77	-0.53

Drawdowns

QYLP.L vs. COPG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QYLP.L drawdown since its inception was -22.40%, smaller than the maximum COPG.L drawdown of -38.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QYLP.L and COPG.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	QYLP.L	COPG.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.40%	-38.84%	+16.44%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.75%	-26.29%	+22.54%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.40%	-38.84%	+16.44%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.65%	-5.64%	+0.99%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.64%	-13.96%	+5.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.27%	8.19%	-6.92%

Volatility

QYLP.L vs. COPG.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP (QYLP.L) is 2.76%, while Global X Copper Miners UCITS ETF USD Acc (COPG.L) has a volatility of 14.11%. This indicates that QYLP.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than COPG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QYLP.L	COPG.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.76%	14.11%	-11.35%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.58%	32.19%	-25.61%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.55%	37.96%	-29.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.11%	33.82%	-18.71%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.11%	33.82%	-18.71%

QYLP.L vs. COPG.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

QYLP.L has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than COPG.L's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

QYLP.L vs. COPG.L - Dividend Comparison

QYLP.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.74%, while COPG.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
COPG.L Global X Copper Miners UCITS ETF USD Acc	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QYLP.L Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP	7.74%	8.93%	8.31%	9.56%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QYLP.L and COPG.L in my portfolio?

QYLP.L and COPG.L have a correlation of 0.14, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, QYLP.L or COPG.L?

On fees, QYLP.L is cheaper at 0.45% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, QYLP.L or COPG.L?

QYLP.L is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for COPG.L.

What is the main difference between QYLP.L and COPG.L?

QYLP.L is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while COPG.L is Commodity Producers Equities. QYLP.L tracks Cboe Nasdaq-100 BuyWrite Index, while COPG.L tracks Solactive Global Copper Miners Total Return Index. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for QYLP.L and 0.65% for COPG.L.