RNRG.L vs. QYLP.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

RNRG.L (Global X Renewable Energy Producers UCITS ETF) and QYLP.L (Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP) are both exchange-traded funds - RNRG.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the Global X Renewable Energy Producers UCITS ETF, while QYLP.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the Cboe Nasdaq-100 BuyWrite Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, RNRG.L returned 1.84%/yr vs 12.73%/yr for QYLP.L. At a 0.28 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RNRG.L charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for QYLP.L.

Performance

RNRG.L vs. QYLP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Renewable Energy Producers UCITS ETF (RNRG.L) and Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP (QYLP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RNRG.L achieves a 9.08% return, which is significantly higher than QYLP.L's 8.42% return.

RNRG.L

• 1D: -0.31%
• 1M: -4.84%
• 6M: 4.43%
• YTD: 9.08%
• 1Y: 26.17%
• 3Y*: 1.84%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QYLP.L

• 1D: -0.29%
• 1M: 0.90%
• 6M: 7.56%
• YTD: 8.42%
• 1Y: 20.55%
• 3Y*: 12.73%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
RNRG.L Global X Renewable Energy Producers UCITS ETF	9.08%	34.05%	-23.00%	-14.97%	-1.45%
QYLP.L Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP	8.42%	5.63%	22.43%	22.73%	-17.36%

Correlation

The correlation between RNRG.L and QYLP.L is 0.34, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.34
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.24
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 22, 2022	0.28

Return for Risk

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

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

RNRG.L

RNRG.L Risk / Return Rank: 47
RNRG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 51
RNRG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
RNRG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 44
RNRG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
RNRG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 47

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

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Renewable Energy Producers UCITS ETF (RNRG.L) and Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP (QYLP.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.

	RNRG.L	QYLP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.43	2.05	-0.62
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.07	2.99	-0.92
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.39	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.85	4.43	-2.58
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.37	18.40	-12.03

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

The current RNRG.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.43, which is lower than the QYLP.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RNRG.L and QYLP.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

RNRG.L vs. QYLP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RNRG.L drawdown since its inception was -51.14%, which is greater than QYLP.L's maximum drawdown of -19.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RNRG.L and QYLP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	RNRG.L	QYLP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-51.14%	-19.69%	-31.45%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.11%	-4.62%	-9.49%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-37.17%	-19.69%	-17.48%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-19.38%	-0.33%	-19.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-26.54%	-3.92%	-22.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.10%	1.11%	+2.99%

Volatility

RNRG.L vs. QYLP.L - Volatility Comparison

Global X Renewable Energy Producers UCITS ETF (RNRG.L) and Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP (QYLP.L) have volatilities of 4.97% and 4.92%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RNRG.L	QYLP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.97%	4.92%	+0.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.51%	8.51%	+6.00%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.18%	9.98%	+8.20%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.45%	14.73%	+6.72%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.45%	14.73%	+6.72%

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

RNRG.L has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than QYLP.L's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

RNRG.L vs. QYLP.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
QYLP.L Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP	11.54%	11.71%	10.64%	10.92%
RNRG.L Global X Renewable Energy Producers UCITS ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

RNRG.L and QYLP.L have a correlation of 0.34, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

QYLP.L is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for RNRG.L.

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

RNRG.L is categorized as Global Equities, while QYLP.L is Nasdaq-100. RNRG.L tracks Global X Renewable Energy Producers UCITS ETF, while QYLP.L tracks Cboe Nasdaq-100 BuyWrite Index. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for RNRG.L and 0.45% for QYLP.L.