QYLD vs XLK: Complete Comparison

Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF vs Technology Select Sector SPDR Fund โ€” overlap, correlation, performance & risk analysis

Holdings Overlap
52.03%
Moderate Overlap
Shared Holdings
32 of 70
Complete portfolio analysis
Calculation Method
Min Weight
Weighted intersection

Visual Overlap

QYLD
XLK
52.0%
QYLD Only
Overlap
XLK Only

Price Performance

Historical price comparison over 3M

QYLD Return
+11.37%
XLK Return
+12.16%
Winner
XLK
+0.79%
Max Drawdown
QYLD: -2.0%
XLK: -10.5%
QYLD Volatility (annualized)7.16%
XLK Volatility (annualized)19.66%

๐Ÿ“ˆ Comparison

Metric
QYLD
XLK
1 Year Return
+12.5%
+35.2%โœ“
3 Year Return
+5.5%
+15.8%โœ“
5 Year Return
+8.8%
+25.5%โœ“
Volatility
15.80%โœ“
24.20%
Expense Ratio
0.60%
0.10%โœ“
โš ๏ธ Past performance does not guarantee future results. Data may be delayed.

โš ๏ธRisk Metrics

Metric
QYLD
XLK
Volatility
15.80%โœ“
24.20%
Sharpe Ratio
0.52
1.05โœ“
Sortino Ratio
0.68
1.42โœ“
Max Drawdown
-28.50%โœ“
-38.50%
Beta
0.68
1.22

Interpretation:

  • ๐Ÿ“Š Lower volatility = smoother ride
  • โšก Higher Sharpe/Sortino = better risk-adjusted returns
  • โš ๏ธ Smaller max drawdown = less worst-case pain
  • ๐Ÿ“ˆ Beta > 1 = more volatile than S&P 500

โš”๏ธ Comparison

5 - 12

๐Ÿ† XLK wins this comparison

Key Factors

๐Ÿ’ฐ Expense Ratio
QYLD:0.60%โœ“
vs
XLK:0.10%โœ“
๐ŸŽฏ Number of Holdings
QYLD:101 holdingsโœ“
vs
XLK:65 holdingsโœ“
๐Ÿ“ˆ 5-Year Return
QYLD:+8.8%โœ“
vs
XLK:+25.5%โœ“
โ–ถAdditional Metrics (5)
โš–๏ธ Concentration Risk
QYLD: 57.4% in top 10
XLK: 62.3% in top 10
๐Ÿ“Š Assets Under Management
QYLD: $8B
XLK: $55B โœ“โœ“
โšก Sharpe Ratio
QYLD: 0.52
XLK: 1.05โœ“
๐Ÿ“‰ Volatility
QYLD: 15.8%โœ“
XLK: 24.2%
๐Ÿ” Uniqueness vs SPY
QYLD: 48.2% unique
XLK: 65.5% uniqueโœ“

Bottom line: XLK wins with better expense ratio and 5-year return. Consider XLK for your portfolio, but QYLD is still a solid choice if you prefer its specific advantages.

Detailed Overlap Analysis

32 shared holdings representing 52.0% portfolio overlap

Top Shared Holdings

#StockQYLD WeightXLK WeightOverlap
1
NVDA
NVDA
10.11%14.84%10.11%
2
AAPL
AAPL
9.26%13.10%9.26%
3
MSFT
MSFT
8.23%11.75%8.23%
4
AVGO
AVGO
7.11%5.36%5.36%
5
PLTR
PLTR
2.29%3.75%2.29%
6
AMD
AMD
1.99%2.96%1.99%
7
CSCO
CSCO
1.74%2.60%1.74%
8
MU
MU
1.56%2.72%1.56%
9
APP
APP
1.23%1.66%1.23%
10
AMAT
AMAT
1.18%1.76%1.18%

Overlap by Sector

Technology
19 stocks ยท 47.46% overlap
Other
13 stocks ยท 7.97% overlap

Showing top 5 sectors by overlap contribution

32
Shared Stocks
52.0%
Total Overlap
2
Sectors Represented

Top Holdings Only in QYLD

Unique to QYLD

โ†Scroll horizontally to see all dataโ†’
SymbolNameWeight
AMZNAMZN5.47%
GOOGLGOOGL4.15%
GOOGGOOG3.88%
TSLATSLA3.65%
METAMETA3.21%

Top Holdings Only in XLK

Unique to XLK

โ†Scroll horizontally to see all dataโ†’
SymbolNameWeight
ORCLORCL2.81%
IBMIBM2.41%
CRMCRM2.13%
APHAPH1.43%
ACNACN1.42%

Price Correlation

How We Calculate Overlap

We use the minimum weight method with normalization to calculate portfolio overlap:

Overlap = ฮฃ min(weightA, weightB) for each shared holding

Normalization: Holdings weights are normalized to sum to 100% before comparison. This ensures accurate overlap calculations even when analyzing partial holdings data (e.g., top 50 positions).

Conservative approach: We consider only the smaller allocation for each shared position, giving you a realistic view of true portfolio overlap.

๐Ÿ“Š This analysis is based on publicly available holdings data. For the most current and complete holdings information, please visit the official ETF provider websites.

Compare More ETFs