QYLP.L vs. NESP.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

QYLP.L (Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP) and NESP.L (Invesco Nasdaq-100 ESG UCITS ETF Acc) are both Nasdaq-100 funds - QYLP.L tracks the Cboe Nasdaq-100 BuyWrite Index while NESP.L tracks the Russell 1000 Growth TR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, QYLP.L returned 11.49%/yr vs 24.39%/yr for NESP.L. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QYLP.L charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for NESP.L.

Performance

QYLP.L vs. NESP.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 Invesco Nasdaq-100 ESG UCITS ETF Acc (NESP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

QYLP.L is traded in GBP, while NESP.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the NESP.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QYLP.L achieves a 7.80% return, which is significantly lower than NESP.L's 18.42% return.

QYLP.L

• 1D: -1.42%
• 1M: -0.01%
• 6M: 6.81%
• YTD: 7.80%
• 1Y: 19.18%
• 3Y*: 11.49%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

NESP.L

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: -2.03%
• 6M: 18.65%
• YTD: 18.42%
• 1Y: 31.08%
• 3Y*: 24.39%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
QYLP.L Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP	7.80%	-1.78%	24.51%	16.58%	-18.75%
NESP.L Invesco Nasdaq-100 ESG UCITS ETF Acc	18.42%	12.78%	28.66%	48.13%	-7.81%

Correlation

The correlation between QYLP.L and NESP.L is 0.67, 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	0.67
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.68
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 22, 2022	0.67

The correlation between QYLP.L and NESP.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.67 to 0.68 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

QYLP.L vs. NESP.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: 84
QYLP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
QYLP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
QYLP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 79
QYLP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
QYLP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 89

NESP.L

NESP.L Risk / Return Rank: 63
NESP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
NESP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
NESP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 65
NESP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
NESP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 52

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. NESP.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 Invesco Nasdaq-100 ESG UCITS ETF Acc (NESP.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.

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.

	QYLP.L	NESP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.98	1.79	+0.19
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.79	2.42	+0.37
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.32	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.27	2.61	+2.66
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.61	7.15	+8.47

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

The current QYLP.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.98, which is comparable to the NESP.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QYLP.L and NESP.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.

Drawdowns

QYLP.L vs. NESP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QYLP.L drawdown since its inception was -21.90%, smaller than the maximum NESP.L drawdown of -40.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QYLP.L and NESP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	QYLP.L	NESP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.90%	-40.98%	+19.08%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.62%	-11.96%	+8.34%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.90%	-24.75%	+2.85%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.17%	-3.11%	+0.94%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.38%	-15.66%	+8.28%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.23%	4.36%	-3.13%

Volatility

QYLP.L vs. NESP.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP (QYLP.L) is 4.86%, while Invesco Nasdaq-100 ESG UCITS ETF Acc (NESP.L) has a volatility of 6.70%. This indicates that QYLP.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NESP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QYLP.L	NESP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.86%	6.70%	-1.84%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.03%	13.39%	-5.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.65%	17.50%	-7.85%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.06%	23.55%	-8.49%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.06%	23.55%	-8.49%

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

QYLP.L has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than NESP.L's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

QYLP.L vs. NESP.L - Dividend Comparison

QYLP.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 11.54%, while NESP.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
NESP.L Invesco Nasdaq-100 ESG UCITS ETF Acc	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QYLP.L Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP	11.54%	11.71%	10.64%	10.92%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

QYLP.L and NESP.L have a correlation of 0.67, 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 NESP.L?

On fees, NESP.L is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

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

NESP.L is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for QYLP.L.

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

QYLP.L tracks Cboe Nasdaq-100 BuyWrite Index, while NESP.L tracks Russell 1000 Growth TR USD. They also come from different issuers: Global X and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for QYLP.L and 0.25% for NESP.L.