QYLP.L vs. INXG.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

QYLP.L (Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP) and INXG.L (iShares £ Index-Linked Gilts UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QYLP.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the Cboe Nasdaq-100 BuyWrite Index, while INXG.L is a Government Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg UK Government Inflation-Linked Bond Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, QYLP.L returned 6.77%/yr vs -0.63%/yr for INXG.L. At a correlation of -0.03, they often move in opposite directions. QYLP.L charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for INXG.L.

Performance

QYLP.L vs. INXG.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 iShares £ Index-Linked Gilts UCITS ETF (INXG.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 higher than INXG.L's 0.04% return.

QYLP.L

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

INXG.L

• 1D: 0.44%
• 1M: 1.08%
• YTD: 0.04%
• 6M: -0.73%
• 1Y: 3.31%
• 3Y*: -0.63%
• 5Y*: -8.26%
• 10Y*: -1.18%

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

QYLP.L vs. INXG.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%
INXG.L iShares £ Index-Linked Gilts UCITS ETF	0.04%	1.10%	-8.66%	0.16%	-6.26%

Correlation

The correlation between QYLP.L and INXG.L is -0.09, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.09
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.01
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 23, 2022	-0.03

Return for Risk

QYLP.L vs. INXG.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

INXG.L

INXG.L Risk / Return Rank: 14
INXG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 14
INXG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
INXG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 13
INXG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 15
INXG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 14

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. INXG.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 iShares £ Index-Linked Gilts UCITS ETF (INXG.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	INXG.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.09	0.33	+1.75
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.03	0.52	+2.51
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.06	+0.32
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.76	0.50	+4.26
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.09	1.08	+13.02
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. INXG.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QYLP.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.09, which is higher than the INXG.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QYLP.L and INXG.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	INXG.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.09	0.33	+1.75
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	-0.41	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	-0.07	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.24	-0.71	+0.95

Drawdowns

QYLP.L vs. INXG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QYLP.L drawdown since its inception was -22.40%, smaller than the maximum INXG.L drawdown of -99.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QYLP.L and INXG.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	QYLP.L	INXG.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.40%	-99.05%	+76.65%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.75%	-6.62%	+2.87%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.40%	-15.04%	-7.36%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-50.87%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-50.87%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.65%	-98.31%	+93.66%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.64%	-97.27%	+88.63%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.27%	3.06%	-1.79%

Volatility

QYLP.L vs. INXG.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP (QYLP.L) is 2.76%, while iShares £ Index-Linked Gilts UCITS ETF (INXG.L) has a volatility of 3.49%. This indicates that QYLP.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than INXG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QYLP.L	INXG.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.76%	3.49%	-0.73%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.58%	7.26%	-0.68%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.55%	9.89%	-1.34%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.11%	20.07%	-4.96%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.11%	17.47%	-2.36%

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

QYLP.L has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than INXG.L's 0.10% expense ratio.

Dividends

QYLP.L vs. INXG.L - Dividend Comparison

QYLP.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.74%, more than INXG.L's 7.56% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
INXG.L iShares £ Index-Linked Gilts UCITS ETF	7.56%	7.23%	5.77%	0.43%	0.00%	0.00%	0.61%	1.36%	1.95%	1.28%	0.65%	1.94%
QYLP.L Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP	7.74%	8.93%	8.31%	9.56%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

QYLP.L and INXG.L have a correlation of -0.09, 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 INXG.L?

On fees, INXG.L is cheaper at 0.10% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

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

INXG.L is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for QYLP.L.

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

QYLP.L is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while INXG.L is Government Bonds. QYLP.L tracks Cboe Nasdaq-100 BuyWrite Index, while INXG.L tracks Bloomberg UK Government Inflation-Linked Bond Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for QYLP.L and 0.10% for INXG.L.