Betashares Nasdaq 100 ETF vs Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call ETF
General information only, not financial advice.
Overlap is calculated from each fund's full published holdings list. Where there are no shared listed holdings it is shown as not reliably estimable.
Betashares Nasdaq 100 ETF
BetaShares
Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call ETF
Global X
Comparison scores reflect how each ETF compares to the other on these specific dimensions only. They are not absolute ratings or recommendations. General information only, not financial advice.
NDQ and QYLD are near-identical US Shares ETFs, with approximately 99% (full holdings data) holdings overlap. NDQ has the lower management fee (0.48% vs 0.6% p.a.). There is limited reason to hold both, as the second fund adds little new exposure. General information only, not financial advice.
Category scores compare these two ETFs only and are not absolute ratings.
NDQ charges 0.48% p.a. and QYLD charges 0.6% p.a.; the lower fee leads on cost.
NDQ manages $8.7B and QYLD manages $22.89M; the larger fund leads on scale, which can support tighter spreads.
NDQ holds 103 positions and QYLD holds 101; the fund with broader holdings leads on diversification.
NDQ distributes approximately 1% (Semi-annually) and QYLD approximately 9.91% (Quarterly); the higher distribution yield leads on income.
Over the compared period NDQ returned 16.5% and QYLD returned 9.7%. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns.
Green highlights the factually lower fee or higher scale/income figure. Performance is never highlighted. Data from issuer disclosures, reviewed quarterly.
Yield figures are estimates based on recent distributions and may vary. Past distributions are not a reliable indicator of future distributions. General information only.
Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns.
Top shared holdings ranked by overlap contribution, the smaller of each company's weight in the two funds. Basis: full holdings data. General information only.
Top 10 listed holdings for each fund, from issuer disclosures. General information only.
NDQ top holdings
QYLD top holdings
Sector weights for QYLDare approximate, inferred from the fund's category. General information only.
NDQ sectors
QYLD sectors
Geographic weights for QYLDare approximate, inferred from the fund's category. General information only.
NDQ geography
QYLD geography
NDQ scores 5.7/10 and QYLD scores 5.2/10 on this comparison. NDQ has the higher overall comparison score.
NDQ may suit investors who: growth-oriented investors (noting past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns).
QYLD may suit investors who: investors seeking income and dividend distributions.
NDQ and QYLD have approximately 99% holdings overlap, based on each fund's full published holdings list. This is considered high overlap. General information only, not financial advice.
NDQ has the lower management fee. NDQ charges 0.48% per year ($48 per year on a $10,000 investment) and QYLD charges 0.6% per year ($60 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $12 per year per $10,000 invested. General information only, not financial advice.
NDQ (Betashares Nasdaq 100 ETF) manages approximately $8.7B and QYLD (Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call ETF) manages approximately $22.89M. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee. General information only, not financial advice.
You can hold both, but with approximately 99% estimated holdings overlap the two funds hold a high proportion of the same companies, so holding both means paying two sets of management fees on largely the same exposure. Whether that suits you depends on your own objectives. General information only, not financial advice.
There is no universally right choice. It depends on your goals, time horizon and existing holdings. NDQ charges 0.48% and QYLD charges 0.6%, so NDQ has the lower management fee, and they have approximately 99% estimated holdings overlap. Compare their fees, holdings and sectors above and consider each fund's Product Disclosure Statement and Target Market Determination. General information only, not financial advice.
General information only.This comparison and the ETFLens tools on this page provide general information about two exchange-traded funds and do not take into account your personal objectives, financial situation or needs. It is not personal financial product or investment advice. ETFLens does not hold an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL). Holdings overlap is calculated from each fund's published holdings (full lists where the issuer publishes one, listed top holdings otherwise), and fee data is sourced from fund manager PDS documents and updated quarterly. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns. Consider each fund's Product Disclosure Statement (PDS) and Target Market Determination (TMD), and seek advice from a registered tax agent or licensed financial adviser, before making investment decisions.
Check your portfolio overlap
See how these ETFs interact with your other holdings.
Open overlap checker →Build your portfolio
ProModel a portfolio with these ETFs and see projected fees and income.
Build a portfolio →Check the CGT cost of switching
ProBefore consolidating overlapping ETFs, model the capital gains tax impact with the ETF Switch Calculator.
Calculate CGT cost →View full ETF profiles
Holdings, fees, sectors and distributions for each fund.
NDQ full profile →QYLD full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →