ETF Comparison

GPIQ vs QYLD: Which Is the Better Pick in 2026?

A head-to-head comparison of Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF and Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call ETF covering yield, cost, risk, and income potential.

Data updated July 4, 2026

Goldman Sachs

ETFs48

Total AUM$64.8B

ETFs and AUM reflect what Dividend Vision tracks — the issuer's full lineup may be larger.

Goldman Sachs operates a 15-fund ETF lineup spanning diverse asset classes including bonds, commodities, factor-based strategies, income-focused funds, and international equities. The issuer is known for its specialized offerings in income generation and factor investing, with popular tickers including GSIE (a U.S. equity income fund) and GBIL (a short-duration bond fund). Their fund families emphasize both traditional index-based approaches and actively managed strategies across fixed income, commodities, and international markets.

See our curated list of related YouTube videos on GPIQ.

See all Goldman Sachs ETFs

Global X

ETFs123

Total AUM$98.3B

ETFs and AUM reflect what Dividend Vision tracks — the issuer's full lineup may be larger.

Global X is known for developing thematic and alternative investment ETFs with a strong emphasis on income-generating strategies. Their 37-fund lineup spans diverse categories including covered call funds, SuperDividend income products, digital assets, commodities, and sector-specific investments, alongside traditional bond and risk-managed income options. Notable tickers like DIV, MLPA, and BCCC reflect their specialization in high-yield and alternative income strategies, positioning them as a provider focused on investors seeking yield-oriented and thematically-driven exposure.

See our curated list of related YouTube videos on QYLD.

See all Global X ETFs

Side-by-side snapshot

	GPIQ	QYLD
Full name	Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF	Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call ETF
Issuer	Goldman Sachs	Global X
Last Close	$57.15 as of July 4, 2026	$18.09 as of July 4, 2026
Distribution yield	10.90%	12.30%
Distribution Safety Score	97	83
Expense ratio	0.29%	0.61%
AUM	$4.62B	$8.22B
Distribution frequency	Monthly	Monthly
Underlying index	NASDAQ 100	NASDAQ 100
Objective	Seeks current income while maintaining prospects for capital appreciation by investing at least 80% of net assets in companies included in the Nasdaq-100 and selling call options with exposure to the benchmark.	Covered Call
Asset class	Equity	Equity
Inception date	10/24/2023	12/11/2013
Beta	1.0964	0.49
Last dividend	$0.5191	$0.1854
Ex-dividend date	07/01/2026	06/22/2026

Income calculator

See how much monthly income a hypothetical investment would generate in each ETF at current yields.

Want to go deeper?

Add these ETFs to a sample portfolio and forecast your dividend income over 5+ years — no signup required.

Build a sample portfolio Forecast income

Visual comparison

Key metrics

Projected income on $10K

Projections assume the current yield and share price remain constant. Actual results will vary.

Total returns

GPIQ has outpaced QYLD over the trailing twelve months, posting a 28.18% total return against 20.88%. Measured from Oct 2023 — when the younger fund began trading — GPIQ has compounded at 28.03% a year versus 16.96% for QYLD. QYLD has been the steadier holding, though — annualized volatility of 10.2% against 15.7% for GPIQ. Figures are total returns: price change plus every distribution reinvested.

Symbol	YTD	1Y	Since Oct 2023	Volatility	Sharpe	Sortino	Max drawdown
GPIQ	14.15%	28.18%	28.03%	15.7%	1.30	1.84	-9.5%
QYLD	7.58%	20.88%	16.96%	10.2%	1.42	2.12	-5.0%

Total return with all distributions reinvested on the ex-dividend date, split-adjusted, as of July 2, 2026. YTD and 1Y are cumulative; longer windows are annualized. “Since Oct 2023” measures every fund from October 26, 2023 — the youngest fund's first trading day — so all funds share one comparison window. Volatility is the annualized standard deviation of daily total returns over the past year. Sharpe and Sortino divide the annualized return in excess of the risk-free rate by, respectively, that volatility and the downside deviation (both over the past year) — higher is better. Max drawdown is the largest peak-to-trough total-return decline over the same window — shallower is better.

Quick verdict

GPIQ (Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF) and QYLD (Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call ETF) are both monthly-pay dividend ETFs, but they take different approaches.

QYLD offers the higher yield at 12.30% vs 10.90% for GPIQ. A higher yield means more current income per dollar invested, though it may come with different risk characteristics.

GPIQ is cheaper with an expense ratio of 0.29% compared to 0.61%.

QYLD is the larger fund by assets ($8.22B), which generally means tighter spreads and better liquidity.

Deep dive

Yield & income

On a $10,000 investment, GPIQ would generate roughly $90.83/month, while QYLD would produce $102.50/month, at current distribution rates. Both pay monthly distributions.

GPIQ yield10.90%

QYLD yield12.30%

Monthly diff on $10K$11.67

Cost & efficiency

Over 10 years on $10,000, GPIQ would cost approximately $290 in fees vs $610 for QYLD (simplified, not compounded). The $320.00 difference may be offset by yield or performance.

GPIQ ER0.29%

QYLD ER0.61%

Strategy & risk

Both GPIQ and QYLD wrap NASDAQ 100 with options-based income overlays (nasdaq100 and covered call). The practical differences are yield target, fee structure, and issuer track record — not the underlying mechanic. Beta is 1.0964 for GPIQ and 0.49 for QYLD, indicating QYLD is less volatile relative to the market.

GPIQ beta1.0964

QYLD beta0.49

Fund details

GPIQ is managed by Goldman Sachs (launched 10/24/2023) with $4.62B in assets. QYLD is managed by Global X (launched 12/11/2013) with $8.22B in assets.

GPIQ AUM$4.62B

QYLD AUM$8.22B

Ready to act?

Open in Comparator Model in portfolio See pricing

Frequently asked questions

Is GPIQ or QYLD better for dividend income?

It depends on your goals. QYLD currently offers the higher distribution yield, which means more income per dollar invested. However, a lower-yield fund may offer better total return or lower volatility. Consider your time horizon and risk tolerance.

What is the difference between GPIQ and QYLD?

Both GPIQ (Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF) and QYLD (Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call ETF) track NASDAQ 100 with options-based income strategies — the labels "nasdaq100" and "covered call" describe closely related mechanics (covered calls are a specific type of options strategy). The real differences show up in yield target (10.90% vs 12.30%), expense ratio (0.29% vs 0.61%), and issuer (Goldman Sachs vs Global X).

Can I hold both GPIQ and QYLD?

You can, but expect significant overlap. Both funds use options-based income strategies on NASDAQ 100, so holding them together gives you two wrappers around effectively the same exposure — not true diversification. Weigh issuer, fee, and yield differences rather than treating them as complementary.

Which has lower fees, GPIQ or QYLD?

GPIQ has an expense ratio of 0.29% while QYLD charges 0.61%. Lower fees mean more of your investment returns stay in your pocket over time.

How much income does $10,000 in GPIQ vs QYLD generate?

At current rates, $10,000 in GPIQ would generate roughly $90.83 per month ($1,090.00 annually). The same in QYLD would produce about $102.50 per month ($1,230.00 annually).

Which has performed better historically, GPIQ or QYLD?

More comparisons to explore

People also compare GPIQ with

People also compare QYLD with

Popular comparisons

GPIQ vs QYLD — at a glance

Generated July 2026 from current fund data.

Overview

GPIQ and QYLD are both monthly-paying ETFs that hold Nasdaq-100 stocks and sell call options to generate income. The key difference: GPIQ launched in late 2023 and distributes 10.90% annually with a 1.10 beta, while QYLD has been running since 2013, pays 12.30% annually, and carries a 0.49 beta. Both charge modest fees, but QYLD's lower beta and longer track record come with a trade-off in yield.

How they differ

The biggest structural difference is beta exposure. QYLD's 0.49 beta means it moves roughly half as much as the Nasdaq-100 on an up or down day, while GPIQ's 1.10 beta tracks nearly in line with the index. That lower beta in QYLD comes from its call-writing program—the sold calls act as a brake on upside participation, which explains both the cushion in downturns and the cap on gains. QYLD also offers a higher distribution rate (12.30% vs. 10.90%) but charges more in expenses (0.61% vs. 0.29%). GPIQ is much newer and smaller ($4.62B in AUM versus QYLD's $8.22B), so it has a thinner operational history—just over a year—while QYLD has a decade of real-world performance to study.

Who each is best for

GPIQ: Fits investors who want monthly income from large-cap tech exposure while preserving most of the Nasdaq-100's upside potential and don't mind newer fund structures. The near-market-level beta appeals to those whose return target still includes meaningful capital appreciation.

QYLD: Designed for income-focused investors willing to trade away significant upside capture in exchange for lower volatility and a higher distribution rate. The 0.49 beta suits those who view these holdings as ballast—higher income, less bounce.

Key risks to know

NAV erosion at high yields. A 12.30% annual distribution on a $18.09 price (QYLD) requires sustained call premium capture and return-of-capital treatment to avoid gradual principal decay. GPIQ's 10.90% yield, though lower, also sits above historical Nasdaq-100 real returns and carries similar NAV-pressure risk over multi-year periods.

Capped upside from call sales. Both funds' call-writing programs limit gains if the Nasdaq-100 rallies sharply. QYLD's 0.49 beta makes this explicit; GPIQ's higher beta suggests fewer/shorter-dated calls sold, but the cap still exists. A sustained tech rally could make both lag a fully long position.

Liquidity and roll risk in volatile markets. When implied volatility spikes (during market stress), the premium available to sellers shrinks, forcing funds to sell calls at worse prices to meet distribution targets. Both are subject to this, though QYLD's larger AUM may offer a slight operational advantage.

Concentration in mega-cap tech. The Nasdaq-100 is heavily weighted to Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Tesla. Both funds inherit that sector concentration and its valuation risk.

Bottom line

If you want to keep most of your Nasdaq-100 exposure and accept a moderate income overlay, GPIQ's lower cost and 1.10 beta keep you closer to index returns. If you prioritize higher income and are comfortable with half the market beta, QYLD's longer history and 12.30% yield make the trade explicit. Neither is immune to NAV drift if markets stagnate; the higher the yield, the greater the reliance on call-premium sustainability. Past performance does not guarantee future results.

AI-generated analysis for educational purposes only. Verify important details independently; past performance does not guarantee future results.