Computed head-to-head · 6 dimensions
QYLD vs XYLD
Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call ETF versus Global X S&P 500 Covered Call ETF — yield, safety, growth trend, cost, scale, and tax treatment.
QYLD wins 2–1 on our six-dimension comparison, but XYLD can still be the better fit depending on your priorities — see each dimension below.
Scorecard at a glance
| Dimension | QYLD | XYLD | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yield | 5.77% | 10.61% | XYLD wins |
| Dividend safety | 6.8/10 | 5.1/10 | QYLD wins |
| Growth trend | — | — | Tie |
| Expense ratio | 60.00% | 60.00% | Tie |
| Scale | $8.4B | $3.1B | QYLD wins |
| Tax efficiency | Ordinary income | Ordinary income | Tie |
| Overall | 2 wins | 1 wins | QYLD wins |
Dimension by dimension
XYLD wins on yield (10.61% vs 5.77%)
On a $10,000 investment that's about $484 more in annual dividend income before taxes — though higher yield often comes with higher risk.
XYLD's higher yield (10.61%) looks attractive but investors should weigh whether the extra income compensates for any additional risk versus QYLD's 5.77% — especially if the higher yield is driven by covered calls or a falling share price.
QYLD wins on safety (6.8/10 vs 5.1/10)
Our score combines yield zone, payout ratio, trend vs 5-year average, instrument type, and size. QYLD scores better on the weighted average of those factors.
QYLD (6.8/10) scores 1.7 points higher than XYLD (5.1/10). A higher safety score means lower historical indicators of dividend cut risk — payout ratio, yield zone, and trend all factor in.
Yield-trend comparison unavailable
One or both tickers are missing 5-year average yield data.
Expense ratios are effectively identical
Both ETFs charge 60.00% — no meaningful cost difference over decades of compounding.
QYLD is 2.7× larger by AUM
Larger funds tend to have tighter spreads, deeper liquidity, and lower closure risk.
Both have similar tax-treatment concerns
Both pay primarily ordinary-income distributions (covered call ETF, REIT, or mREIT). Hold in a tax-advantaged account for the cleanest treatment.
How we compare these
Every comparison on this page is computed from current public data, not written by hand. Yield comes from the most recent dividend distribution annualized over current price. Safety scores combine yield zone, payout ratio, trend vs 5-year average, instrument type, and size — see our methodology for the exact formula. Tax-efficiency flags identify covered-call ETFs, REITs, and mREITs which distribute primarily as ordinary income.
This is educational, not investment advice.Scores reflect a snapshot of public data on the "as of" dates shown on each ticker's safety page. Verify on the issuer's investor relations page or your brokerage before making decisions.
Frequently asked
Which is better for income, QYLD or XYLD?
QYLD wins 2–1 on our six-dimension comparison, but XYLD can still be the better fit depending on your priorities — see each dimension below.
QYLD vs XYLD: which has a higher dividend yield?
QYLD yields 5.77% and XYLD yields 10.61%. On a $10,000 investment that's about $484 more in annual dividend income before taxes — though higher yield often comes with higher risk.
Is QYLD or XYLD a safer dividend in 2026?
QYLD scores 6.8/10 (Solid) on the Infnits dividend safety scale. XYLD scores 5.1/10 (Mixed). QYLD is the safer pick on our scoring model.
Which has better dividend growth, QYLD or XYLD?
One or both tickers are missing 5-year average yield data.
QYLD vs XYLD: which is more tax-efficient?
Both pay primarily ordinary-income distributions (covered call ETF, REIT, or mREIT). Hold in a tax-advantaged account for the cleanest treatment.
Get emailed when QYLD vs XYLD data updates.
Already own QYLD or XYLD? See if the other adds anything.
Connect your brokerage and Infnits checks whether adding QYLD to your existing portfolio actually diversifies — or just duplicates exposure (ETF look-through included).
Check overlap with my portfolio →