XYLG vs. COSW

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

XYLG (Global X S&P 500 Covered Call & Growth ETF) and COSW (Roundhill COST WeeklyPay ETF) are both Derivative Income funds. XYLG is passively managed, while COSW is actively managed. At a correlation of -0.13, they often move in opposite directions. XYLG charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.99%/yr for COSW.

Performance

XYLG vs. COSW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X S&P 500 Covered Call & Growth ETF (XYLG) and Roundhill COST WeeklyPay ETF (COSW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XYLG achieves a 6.37% return, which is significantly lower than COSW's 9.49% return.

XYLG

• 1D: 0.33%
• 1M: -0.90%
• YTD: 6.37%
• 6M: 5.82%
• 1Y: 19.16%
• 3Y*: 16.14%
• 5Y*: 10.08%
• 10Y*: —

COSW

• 1D: -2.05%
• 1M: -7.53%
• YTD: 9.49%
• 6M: 7.99%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

XYLG vs. COSW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
XYLG Global X S&P 500 Covered Call & Growth ETF	6.37%	3.59%
COSW Roundhill COST WeeklyPay ETF	9.49%	-10.48%

Correlation

The correlation between XYLG and COSW is -0.13, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 23, 2025	-0.13

XYLG vs. COSW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XYLG	COSW
Technology	39.2%	-
Financial Services	11.6%	-
Communication Services	10.2%	-
Consumer Cyclical	9.5%	-
Healthcare	8.4%	-
Industrials	7.9%	-
Consumer Defensive	4.6%	8.4%
Energy	3.1%	-
Utilities	2.6%	-
Real Estate	1.8%	-
Basic Materials	1.8%	-

Return for Risk

XYLG vs. COSW — Risk / Return Rank

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

XYLG

XYLG Risk / Return Rank: 71
XYLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
XYLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
XYLG Omega Ratio Rank: 70
XYLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
XYLG Martin Ratio Rank: 80

COSW

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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.

XYLG vs. COSW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X S&P 500 Covered Call & Growth ETF (XYLG) and Roundhill COST WeeklyPay ETF (COSW). 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.

	XYLG	COSW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.95	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.74	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.78	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.52	—	—

Drawdowns

XYLG vs. COSW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XYLG drawdown since its inception was -21.30%, which is greater than COSW's maximum drawdown of -16.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XYLG and COSW.

Drawdown Indicators

	XYLG	COSW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.30%	-16.63%	-4.67%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.93%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.42%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.30%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.79%	-16.63%	+14.84%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.07%	-5.01%	+0.94%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.42%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	XYLG	COSW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.48%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.12%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.90%	25.50%	-15.60%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.07%	25.50%	-11.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.86%	25.50%	-11.64%

XYLG vs. COSW - Expense Ratio Comparison

XYLG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than COSW's 0.99% expense ratio.

Dividends

XYLG vs. COSW - Dividend Comparison

XYLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 13.25%, less than COSW's 20.02% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
COSW Roundhill COST WeeklyPay ETF	20.02%	4.96%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
XYLG Global X S&P 500 Covered Call & Growth ETF	13.25%	13.94%	23.65%	4.90%	6.43%	7.40%	1.39%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XYLG and COSW in my portfolio?

XYLG and COSW have a correlation of -0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, XYLG or COSW?

On fees, XYLG is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, XYLG or COSW?

XYLG is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for COSW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, XYLG or COSW?

COSW has the higher dividend yield at 20.02%, compared with 13.25% for XYLG.

What is the main difference between XYLG and COSW?

They also come from different issuers: Global X and Roundhill. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for XYLG and 0.99% for COSW.