QQQX vs QRMI
Nuveen NASDAQ 100 Dynamic Overwrite Fund vs Global X NASDAQ 100 Risk Managed Income ETF
Which is better, QQQX or QRMI?
QQQX has been ahead.
QRMI has a lower expense ratio. QQQX led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. QRMI is less concentrated, with 48.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 55.2%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | QQQX | QRMI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.92% | 0.60%Best |
| AUM | $1.6B | $15M |
| Dividend Yield | 8.33% | 12.35% |
| Holdings | 286 | 107 |
| YTD Return | +15.65%Best | +4.65% |
| 1Y Return | +22.71%Best | +8.47% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.79%Best | +8.12% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +9.63%Best | +2.56% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 19.4% | 7.7%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -29.3% | -20.9%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $15,836Best | $11,347 |
| Top 10 Weight | 55.2% | 48.7%Best |
| Fund Family | Nuveen | GLOBALXETFS |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Jan 30, 2007 | Aug 25, 2021 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Aug 26, 2021 to Oct 14, 2026 (5.1 years).
QQQX vs QRMI growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 5.1 years both funds cover.
QQQX vs QRMI Performance
Nuveen NASDAQ 100 Dynamic Overwrite Fund (QQQX) is an ETF from Nuveen and Global X NASDAQ 100 Risk Managed Income ETF (QRMI) is an ETF from GLOBALXETFS. Over the past year QQQX returned +22.71% while QRMI returned +8.47%. Year to date, QQQX is up 15.65% versus a gain of 4.65% for QRMI.
Over three years, QQQX compounded at +20.79% per year against +8.12% for QRMI; over five years the annualized figures are +9.63% and +2.56% respectively.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQX has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.4% compared with 7.7% for QRMI. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -29.3% for QQQX and -20.9% for QRMI. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.84. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
QQQX charges 0.92% per year while QRMI charges 0.60%. On a $10,000 position that is $92 vs $60 annually, a gap of $32 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, QQQX currently yields 8.33% against 12.35% for QRMI.
Holdings Overlap
75.4% of QQQX's money is in holdings QRMI also owns. 57.5% of QRMI's money is in holdings QQQX also owns.
Most of QQQX is already inside QRMI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
The two holdings books were reported 244 days apart, QQQX as of Jan 30, 2026 and QRMI as of Oct 1, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.
28 positions in common, counted across the 261 positions we hold weights for in QQQX and 101 in QRMI, against full books of 286 and 107.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 67 positions for QRMI that do not appear in our book for QQQX (44.3% of the fund), and 205 for QQQX that do not appear in QRMI (19.1%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in QQQX | Weight in QRMI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 10.24% | 8.77% | 1.47% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 8.83% | 7.60% | 1.23% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 7.86% | 6.00% | 1.86% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 5.03% | 4.22% | 0.81% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 5.23% | 2.92% | 2.31% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 3.71% | 3.40% | 0.31% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 4.31% | 2.58% | 1.73% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 3.95% | 2.93% | 1.02% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 2.49% | 4.37% | 1.88% |
| AMATApplied Materials, Inc. | 3.51% | 1.82% | 1.69% |
75.4% of QQQX is already inside QRMI.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, QQQX or QRMI?
QQQX has an expense ratio of 0.92% while QRMI charges 0.60%. QRMI is the cheaper option, by $32 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, QQQX or QRMI?
Over the past year QQQX returned +22.71% vs +8.47% for QRMI, so QQQX leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, QQQX or QRMI?
QQQX has been the more volatile fund at 19.4% annualized versus 7.7% for QRMI. Worst drawdown: QQQX -29.3% vs QRMI -20.9%.
Should I hold both QQQX and QRMI?
QQQX and QRMI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.84, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between QQQX and QRMI?
75.4% of QQQX's money is in holdings QRMI also owns. 57.5% of QRMI's is in holdings QQQX also owns. They hold 28 positions in common, counted across the 261 positions we hold weights for in QQQX and 101 in QRMI.
Which pays a higher dividend, QQQX or QRMI?
QQQX yields 8.33% while QRMI yields 12.35%, so QRMI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QRMI better than QQQX?
QRMI has a lower expense ratio. QQQX led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. QRMI is less concentrated, with 48.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 55.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.