RYLG vs. QYLG

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

RYLG (Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF) and QYLG (Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RYLG is a Derivative Income fund tracking the Cboe Russell 2000 Half BuyWrite Index, while QYLG is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the CBOE Nasdaq-100 BuyWrite V2 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, RYLG returned 13.83%/yr vs 20.15%/yr for QYLG. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RYLG charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for QYLG.

Performance

RYLG vs. QYLG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF (RYLG) and Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF (QYLG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RYLG achieves a 14.56% return, which is significantly higher than QYLG's 12.38% return.

RYLG

• 1D: -0.71%
• 1M: 2.84%
• YTD: 14.56%
• 6M: 12.57%
• 1Y: 30.21%
• 3Y*: 13.83%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QYLG

• 1D: -2.59%
• 1M: 0.48%
• YTD: 12.38%
• 6M: 11.55%
• 1Y: 29.18%
• 3Y*: 20.15%
• 5Y*: 12.12%
• 10Y*: —

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

RYLG vs. QYLG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
RYLG Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF	14.56%	9.39%	10.57%	8.33%	-2.32%
QYLG Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF	12.38%	15.29%	22.02%	38.73%	-2.61%

Correlation

The correlation between RYLG and QYLG is 0.70, 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	0.70
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.66
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 5, 2022	0.67

The correlation between RYLG and QYLG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.66 to 0.70 - a consistent structural relationship.

RYLG vs. QYLG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RYLG	QYLG
Technology	19.0%	58.7%
Industrials	18.0%	2.6%
Healthcare	16.3%	3.7%
Financial Services	15.5%	0.2%
Consumer Cyclical	8.0%	11.4%
Real Estate	5.9%	0.1%
Energy	5.4%	0.5%
Basic Materials	4.7%	1.0%
Utilities	2.8%	1.2%
Communication Services	2.4%	14.3%
Consumer Defensive	2.3%	6.4%

Return for Risk

RYLG vs. QYLG — Risk / Return Rank

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

RYLG

RYLG Risk / Return Rank: 70
RYLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
RYLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
RYLG Omega Ratio Rank: 63
RYLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
RYLG Martin Ratio Rank: 78

QYLG

QYLG Risk / Return Rank: 71
QYLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
QYLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
QYLG Omega Ratio Rank: 70
QYLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
QYLG Martin Ratio Rank: 80

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.

RYLG vs. QYLG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF (RYLG) and Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF (QYLG). 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.

	RYLG	QYLG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.02	2.15	-0.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.83	2.89	-0.06
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.39	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.71	3.48	+0.23
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.23	15.22	-0.99

RYLG vs. QYLG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RYLG Sharpe Ratio is 2.02, which is comparable to the QYLG Sharpe Ratio of 2.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RYLG and QYLG, 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

RYLG vs. QYLG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RYLG drawdown since its inception was -22.37%, smaller than the maximum QYLG drawdown of -29.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RYLG and QYLG.

Drawdown Indicators

	RYLG	QYLG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.37%	-29.98%	+7.61%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.18%	-8.42%	+0.24%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.37%	-20.75%	-1.62%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-29.98%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.71%	-2.94%	+2.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.09%	-6.37%	+2.28%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.13%	1.92%	+0.21%

Volatility

RYLG vs. QYLG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF (RYLG) is 4.16%, while Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF (QYLG) has a volatility of 6.71%. This indicates that RYLG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QYLG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RYLG	QYLG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.16%	6.71%	-2.55%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.10%	11.50%	-0.40%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.05%	13.67%	+1.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.15%	18.19%	-1.04%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.15%	18.05%	-0.90%

RYLG vs. QYLG - Expense Ratio Comparison

RYLG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than QYLG's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

RYLG vs. QYLG - Dividend Comparison

RYLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 10.29%, less than QYLG's 16.69% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
QYLG Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF	16.69%	17.93%	25.27%	5.43%	6.91%	10.15%	1.44%
RYLG Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call & Growth ETF	10.29%	10.82%	23.73%	5.78%	4.36%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RYLG and QYLG in my portfolio?

RYLG and QYLG have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RYLG or QYLG?

QYLG has higher volatility (6.71%) compared to RYLG (4.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RYLG dropped -22.37% vs QYLG's -29.98%.

Which ETF is better, RYLG or QYLG?

On 3-year performance, QYLG leads with 20.15% vs 13.83% for RYLG. On fees, RYLG is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, RYLG has been the lower-risk option at 4.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RYLG or QYLG?

Over the 3-year period, QYLG has performed better with a 20.15% return vs 13.83%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RYLG or QYLG?

RYLG is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for QYLG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RYLG or QYLG?

QYLG has the higher dividend yield at 16.69%, compared with 10.29% for RYLG.

What is the main difference between RYLG and QYLG?

RYLG is categorized as Derivative Income, while QYLG is Nasdaq-100. RYLG tracks Cboe Russell 2000 Half BuyWrite Index, while QYLG tracks CBOE Nasdaq-100 BuyWrite V2 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RYLG and 0.60% for QYLG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QYLG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.15 vs 2.02), 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.