SILG.L vs. QYLP.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

SILG.L (Global X Silver Miners UCITS ETF USD Accumulating) and QYLP.L (Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP) are both exchange-traded funds - SILG.L is a Silver fund tracking the Solactive Global Silver Miners Total Return v2 Index, while QYLP.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the Cboe Nasdaq-100 BuyWrite Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, SILG.L returned 45.51%/yr vs 6.77%/yr for QYLP.L. At a 0.00 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. SILG.L charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for QYLP.L.

Performance

SILG.L vs. QYLP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Global X Silver Miners UCITS ETF USD Accumulating (SILG.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.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SILG.L achieves a 5.62% return, which is significantly higher than QYLP.L's 4.67% return.

SILG.L

• 1D: 0.35%
• 1M: 2.67%
• YTD: 5.62%
• 6M: 16.67%
• 1Y: 98.68%
• 3Y*: 45.51%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QYLP.L

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

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
SILG.L Global X Silver Miners UCITS ETF USD Accumulating	5.62%	153.98%	13.53%	-6.34%	0.35%
QYLP.L Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP	4.67%	-4.48%	21.40%	14.93%	-18.74%

Correlation

The correlation between SILG.L and QYLP.L is 0.08, 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	0.08
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.02
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 23, 2022	0.00

Return for Risk

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

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

SILG.L

SILG.L Risk / Return Rank: 54
SILG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
SILG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 50
SILG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 50
SILG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
SILG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 47

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

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Silver Miners UCITS ETF USD Accumulating (SILG.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.

	SILG.L	QYLP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.98	2.09	-0.10
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.43	3.03	-0.60
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.38	-0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.16	4.76	-1.60
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.69	14.09	-6.40
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current SILG.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.98, which is comparable to the QYLP.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SILG.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	SILG.L	QYLP.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.98	2.09	-0.10
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.68	0.24	+0.44

Drawdowns

SILG.L vs. QYLP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SILG.L drawdown since its inception was -32.00%, which is greater than QYLP.L's maximum drawdown of -22.40%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SILG.L and QYLP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	SILG.L	QYLP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.00%	-22.40%	-9.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-30.90%	-3.75%	-27.15%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-30.90%	-22.40%	-8.50%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-24.56%	-4.65%	-19.91%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.52%	-8.64%	-3.88%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	12.74%	1.27%	+11.47%

Volatility

SILG.L vs. QYLP.L - Volatility Comparison

Global X Silver Miners UCITS ETF USD Accumulating (SILG.L) has a higher volatility of 18.48% compared to Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP (QYLP.L) at 2.76%. This indicates that SILG.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QYLP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SILG.L	QYLP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	18.48%	2.76%	+15.72%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	39.95%	6.58%	+33.37%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	49.23%	8.55%	+40.68%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	39.40%	15.11%	+24.29%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	39.40%	15.11%	+24.29%

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

SILG.L has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than QYLP.L's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

SILG.L vs. QYLP.L - Dividend Comparison

SILG.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QYLP.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.74%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
QYLP.L Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP	7.74%	8.93%	8.31%	9.56%
SILG.L Global X Silver Miners UCITS ETF USD Accumulating	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

SILG.L and QYLP.L have a correlation of 0.08, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

QYLP.L is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for SILG.L.

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

SILG.L is categorized as Silver, while QYLP.L is Nasdaq-100. SILG.L tracks Solactive Global Silver Miners Total Return v2 Index, while QYLP.L tracks Cboe Nasdaq-100 BuyWrite Index. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for SILG.L and 0.45% for QYLP.L.