QYLD vs VTI
Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, QYLD or VTI?
Multi Alternative against Large Cap Blend.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. QYLD led over 1Y, VTI over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 49.2%.
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 | QYLD | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.60% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $8.5B | $689.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 11.49% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 209 | 3,524 |
| YTD Return | +15.47%Best | +13.02% |
| 1Y Return | +23.04%Best | +16.63% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +15.90% | +21.97%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +8.90% | +11.99%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 11.0%Best | 14.9% |
| Max Drawdown | -30.7%Best | -35.0% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $15,316 | $17,616Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 49.2% | 33.5%Best |
| Fund Family | Global X by mirae Asset | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Alternative | Equity |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Dec 11, 2013 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 12, 2013 to Oct 14, 2026 (12.8 years).
QYLD vs VTI 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 12.8 years both funds cover.
QYLD vs VTI Performance
Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD) is an ETF from Global X by mirae Asset and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year QYLD returned +23.04% while VTI returned +16.63%. Year to date, QYLD is up 15.47% versus a gain of 13.02% for VTI.
Over three years, QYLD compounded at +15.90% per year against +21.97% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +8.90% and +11.99% respectively. Across the full 13-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +12.26% annualized vs +3.16%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VTI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 14.9% compared with 11.0% for QYLD. 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 -30.7% for QYLD and -35.0% for VTI. 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
QYLD charges 0.60% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $60 vs $3 annually, a gap of $57 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, QYLD currently yields 11.49% against 1.06% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
100.0% of QYLD's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 48.1% of VTI's money is in holdings QYLD also owns.
Most of QYLD is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
91 positions in common, counted across the 101 positions we hold weights for in QYLD and 3,441 in VTI, against full books of 209 and 3,524.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,065 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for QYLD (49.5% of the fund), and 4 for QYLD that do not appear in VTI (1.4%).
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 QYLD | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.87% | 6.88% | 1.99% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.66% | 6.30% | 1.36% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 6.04% | 5.11% | 0.93% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.27% | 3.41% | 0.86% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 5.27% | 1.46% | 3.81% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 3.17% | 2.70% | 0.47% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 4.49% | 1.04% | 3.45% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 3.40% | 1.70% | 1.70% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 2.95% | 2.12% | 0.83% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.66% | 2.38% | 0.28% |
100.0% of QYLD is already inside VTI.
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, QYLD or VTI?
QYLD has an expense ratio of 0.60% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $57 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, QYLD or VTI?
Over the past year QYLD returned +23.04% vs +16.63% for VTI, so QYLD leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (13 years), QYLD annualized +3.16% vs +12.26% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, QYLD or VTI?
VTI has been the more volatile fund at 14.9% annualized versus 11.0% for QYLD. Worst drawdown: QYLD -30.7% vs VTI -35.0%.
Should I hold both QYLD and VTI?
QYLD and VTI 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 QYLD and VTI?
100.0% of QYLD's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 48.1% of VTI's is in holdings QYLD also owns. They hold 91 positions in common, counted across the 101 positions we hold weights for in QYLD and 3,441 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, QYLD or VTI?
QYLD yields 11.49% while VTI yields 1.06%, so QYLD currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than QYLD?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. QYLD led over 1Y, VTI over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 49.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.