GPIX vs QYLD: Which ETF Is Better in 2026?
A metric-by-metric comparison of Goldman Sachs S&P 500 Premium Income ETF (GPIX) and Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD) — both Covered Call / Income funds — using ETFValuer's daily-updated rankings.
Educational content — not financial advice. Data as of July 25, 2026. ~5 minute read.
The Verdict
GPIX and QYLD compete directly — both are Covered Call / Income funds chasing the same job in a portfolio. That makes this a genuine either/or: the index each tracks, what it costs, and how it has handled drawdowns are what separate them, not the broad exposure they give you.
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — GPIX scores higher: 67.9 (Grade B) versus 64.8 for QYLD. That doesn't make QYLD a bad fund; it means GPIX currently edges it out on this specific mix of factors. Read the metric-by-metric breakdown below before deciding which matters more for your own portfolio.
Head-to-Head: Every Metric
| GPIX | QYLD | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Covered Call / Income | Covered Call / Income |
| Expense ratio | 0.29% | 0.60% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $4.7B | $8.4B |
| Dividend yield | 1.58% | 9.44% |
| 1-year return | +17.96% | +18.76% |
| 3-year return | n/a | +40.48% |
| Volatility | 10.98% | 10.89% |
| Max drawdown | -17.50% | -19.06% |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.18 | 1.26 |
| ETFValuer score | 67.9 | 64.8 |
| Grade | B | C |
| Overall rank | #142 | #174 |
Bold marks the better value in each row. "Better" is directional only (e.g. lower cost, higher return) — it isn't a recommendation by itself. See the full methodology.
Cost
GPIX is the cheaper fund, charging 0.29% a year versus 0.60% for QYLD — a gap of 0.31 percentage points (about $31.00/year on a $10,000 position) that compounds meaningfully over a multi-decade holding period. See the ETF Fee Calculator for the exact dollar impact at your investment size and horizon.
What QYLD's Fees Cost You
QYLD charges an expense ratio of 0.60% a year, deducted automatically from the fund's value. Small percentages compound into real money — adjust the figures below to see the impact on your own numbers.
Assumes a constant gross return and no additional contributions — a simplification, but it isolates exactly what the expense ratio costs. Try the full fee calculator to model contributions and compare any two funds.
Performance & Risk
Because at least one of these funds is too young for a 3-year record, the comparison rests on the 1-year window: QYLD returned +18.76% against +17.96% for GPIX. QYLD has the better risk-adjusted figure over that window (Sharpe 1.26 vs 1.18). A single year says very little about how either fund behaves across a full market cycle, so weight this far less heavily than you would a long record.
A Note on Comparing These Two
GPIX has only 2.7 years of trading history, against a full three-year record for QYLD. That makes several figures below not directly comparable: the 3-year return is unavailable, and the maximum drawdown covers a shorter — and possibly calmer — stretch of market history. A shallow drawdown on a young fund means it has not yet been tested, not that it held up well.
How Closely Do They Track Each Other?
Over the last 2.7 years of daily returns (685 shared trading days), GPIX and QYLD show a strong correlation of 0.888 — clearly related, with room to diverge. There is some genuine differentiation here, but not enough to call these complementary holdings. Pairing them mostly concentrates risk rather than spreading it.
| Measure | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Daily return correlation | 0.888 | Strong — clearly related, with room to diverge |
| R-squared | 78.8% | 78.8% of GPIX's daily moves are explained by QYLD's |
| Tracking error (annualised) | 6.51% | Typical yearly spread between the two funds' returns |
| Annualised return over 2.7y | GPIX +23.21% · QYLD +16.11% | GPIX ahead by 7.09 points a year |
Correlation alone understates how far these can drift. Across every rolling 12-month window in the period, GPIX finished as much as +11.3 points ahead of QYLD at the best extreme and -2.6 points at the worst — a 13.9-point spread between the best and worst year of relative performance. Two funds can correlate tightly day to day and still deliver very different outcomes over any single year you happen to hold them.
Calculated from daily total returns over the trailing 3-year window, recomputed every day this site refreshes. Correlation of 1.00 means the two funds moved in lockstep; 0.00 means their daily moves were unrelated.
Holdings Overlap
GPIX and QYLD hold 7 of the same companies among their top 10 positions. Those shared names make up 31.6% of GPIX and 41.8% of QYLD. That's heavy duplication — owning both largely doubles down on the same companies rather than spreading risk. Most investors should pick one.
| Shared Holding | GPIX Weight | QYLD Weight |
|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA Corp. | 7.59% | 8.85% |
| Apple Inc. | 6.68% | 7.27% |
| Alphabet Inc. | 4.41% | 7.88% |
| Microsoft Corp. | 4.82% | 5.53% |
| Amazon.com, Inc. | 3.67% | 5.19% |
| Broadcom Inc | 2.58% | 3.61% |
| Tesla Inc | 1.82% | 3.48% |
Compares the top 10 reported holdings from each fund's most recent SEC N-PORT-P filing, so it understates total overlap — funds tracking similar indexes overlap far more deeply than the top 10 alone can show. Search any company across all tracked funds with the Stock Overlap tool.
Which One Should You Pick?
Lean GPIX if…
- You want the lower running cost — 0.29% vs 0.60%, about $31 a year less on a $10,000 position
Lean QYLD if…
- Current income matters to you — it yields 9.44% against 1.58%
Whichever you pick, holding both at full weight is usually the wrong answer — see the overlap and correlation sections above.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is GPIX or QYLD better?
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — GPIX scores higher: 67.9 (Grade B) versus 64.8 for QYLD. That doesn't make QYLD a bad fund; it means GPIX currently edges it out on this specific mix of factors. Read the metric-by-metric breakdown below before deciding which matters more for your own portfolio.
Which has the lower expense ratio, GPIX or QYLD?
GPIX currently has the lower expense ratio (0.29% vs. 0.60%).
Can I hold both GPIX and QYLD?
You can, though the benefit is limited. At a correlation of 0.89, GPIX and QYLD fall together far more often than not, so owning both adds complexity and a second expense ratio without much real diversification. Most investors are better served picking one.
Go deeper on either fund
Full daily-updated metrics, holdings context, and category peers.