RNRG vs. QYLD

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

RNRG (Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF) and QYLD (Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RNRG is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the Indxx Renewable Energy Producers Index, while QYLD is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the CBOE NASDAQ-100 Buy Write V2. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RNRG returned 4.26%/yr vs 9.81%/yr for QYLD. At a 0.42 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RNRG charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for QYLD.

Performance

RNRG vs. QYLD - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RNRG achieves a 16.42% return, which is significantly higher than QYLD's 7.88% return. Over the past 10 years, RNRG has underperformed QYLD with an annualized return of 4.26%, while QYLD has yielded a comparatively higher 9.81% annualized return.

RNRG

• 1D: -1.05%
• 1M: -1.46%
• YTD: 16.42%
• 6M: 15.60%
• 1Y: 40.09%
• 3Y*: 4.03%
• 5Y*: -2.90%
• 10Y*: 4.26%

QYLD

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 1.40%
• YTD: 7.88%
• 6M: 9.91%
• 1Y: 23.70%
• 3Y*: 13.76%
• 5Y*: 8.43%
• 10Y*: 9.81%

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

RNRG vs. QYLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
RNRG Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF	16.42%	29.61%	-22.00%	-12.82%	-15.30%	-12.78%	26.67%	37.04%	-6.22%	21.16%
QYLD Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF	7.88%	9.28%	19.35%	22.77%	-19.08%	10.41%	8.72%	22.69%	-3.07%	18.79%

Correlation

The correlation between RNRG and QYLD is 0.46, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.46
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.34
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.46
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.42
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 29, 2015	0.42

The correlation between RNRG and QYLD shifts across timeframes, from 0.34 (3 years) to 0.46 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RNRG vs. QYLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RNRG	QYLD
Utilities	92.8%	1.4%
Industrials	3.0%	2.8%
Technology	2.2%	53.8%
Basic Materials	2.1%	1.1%
Communication Services	-	15.8%
Consumer Cyclical	-	12.3%
Consumer Defensive	-	7.7%
Energy	-	0.6%
Financial Services	-	0.2%
Healthcare	-	4.2%
Real Estate	-	0.1%

Return for Risk

RNRG vs. QYLD — Risk / Return Rank

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

RNRG

RNRG Risk / Return Rank: 82
RNRG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
RNRG Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
RNRG Omega Ratio Rank: 72
RNRG Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
RNRG Martin Ratio Rank: 88

QYLD

QYLD Risk / Return Rank: 89
QYLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
QYLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
QYLD Omega Ratio Rank: 92
QYLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
QYLD Martin Ratio Rank: 94

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 vs. QYLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF (RNRG) and Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD). 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.

	RNRG	QYLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.55	2.78	-0.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.39	3.89	-0.50
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.63	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.77	4.79	+1.98
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.73	28.10	-9.37
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RNRG vs. QYLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RNRG Sharpe Ratio is 2.55, which is comparable to the QYLD Sharpe Ratio of 2.78. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RNRG and QYLD, 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

	RNRG	QYLD	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.55	2.78	-0.23
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.15	0.58	-0.72
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.22	0.63	-0.42
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.06	0.59	-0.53

Drawdowns

RNRG vs. QYLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RNRG drawdown since its inception was -58.79%, which is greater than QYLD's maximum drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RNRG and QYLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	RNRG	QYLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-58.79%	-24.75%	-34.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.95%	-4.97%	-0.98%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-35.23%	-19.06%	-16.17%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-52.17%	-24.61%	-27.56%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-58.79%	-24.75%	-34.04%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-31.11%	-0.06%	-31.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-24.45%	-3.84%	-20.61%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.15%	0.85%	+1.30%

Volatility

RNRG vs. QYLD - Volatility Comparison

Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF (RNRG) has a higher volatility of 5.50% compared to Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD) at 1.84%. This indicates that RNRG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QYLD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RNRG	QYLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.50%	1.84%	+3.66%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.14%	7.12%	+5.02%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.82%	8.57%	+7.25%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.09%	14.70%	+5.39%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.67%	15.49%	+4.18%

RNRG vs. QYLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

RNRG has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than QYLD's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

RNRG vs. QYLD - Dividend Comparison

RNRG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.29%, less than QYLD's 11.46% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
QYLD Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF	11.46%	11.55%	12.50%	11.78%	13.75%	12.85%	11.16%	9.84%	12.44%	7.69%	9.15%	9.42%
RNRG Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF	1.29%	1.50%	1.48%	1.44%	1.15%	1.10%	3.16%	2.97%	5.22%	4.14%	5.02%	3.48%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RNRG and QYLD in my portfolio?

RNRG and QYLD have a correlation of 0.46, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RNRG or QYLD?

RNRG has higher volatility (5.50%) compared to QYLD (1.84%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RNRG dropped -58.79% vs QYLD's -24.75%.

Which ETF is better, RNRG or QYLD?

On 10-year performance, QYLD leads with 9.81% vs 4.26% for RNRG. On fees, QYLD is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, QYLD has been the lower-risk option at 1.84%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RNRG or QYLD?

Over the 10-year period, QYLD has performed better with a 9.81% return vs 4.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RNRG or QYLD?

QYLD is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for RNRG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RNRG or QYLD?

QYLD has the higher dividend yield at 11.46%, compared with 1.29% for RNRG.

What is the main difference between RNRG and QYLD?

RNRG is categorized as Alternative Energy Equities, while QYLD is Nasdaq-100. RNRG tracks Indxx Renewable Energy Producers Index, while QYLD tracks CBOE NASDAQ-100 Buy Write V2. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for RNRG and 0.60% for QYLD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QYLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.78 vs 2.55), 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.