Get the weekly note
ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

Data as of .

MAGY vs QYLG: which paid, and which earned it?

Over the year MAGY paid 26.5% of its price in cash against QYLG’s 17.4%, though QYLG returned more with it reinvested.

Roundhill Magnificent Seven Covered Call ETF and Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF.

26.5%MAGY cash paid, 1 year
17.4%QYLG cash paid, 1 year
+1.8%MAGY total return, 1 year
+22.2%QYLG total return, 1 year

ETFIQ Return Stability Score: QYLG scores higher

Was the payout funded by returns, or by your own capital?

MAGY 22.6QYLG 71.13.8, the lowest in this set96.8, the highest

A percentile among the 173 income ETFs writing on an index or proxy. It is a position in a set, not a rating, and neither end of it is a recommendation. All income ETFs ranked by it · How it is computed

MAGY9.4 pts behind MAGS · 1 year to Sep 18, 2026
MAGS+11.2%MAGY+1.8%9.4 pts behind MAGSTotal return, distributions reinvestedMAGS+11.2%MAGY+1.8%9.4 pts behind MAGS
QYLGAbout even with QQQ · 1 year to Sep 18, 2026
QQQ+21.8%QYLG+22.2%17.4% of it arrived as cashabout even with QQQTotal return, distributions reinvestedQQQ+21.8%QYLG+22.2%17.4% as cashabout even with QQQ

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, MAGY and QYLG hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Only in each
Only in MAGYOnly in QYLG
Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF 100.02%NVIDIA CORP 8.44%
First American Government Obligations Fu 0.36%APPLE INC 7.73%
MAGS 09/25/2026 71.37 C -0.38%MICROSOFT CORP 5.77%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC 4.99%
AMAZON.COM INC 4.31%
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES 3.97%
ALPHABET INC-CL A 3.23%
META PLATFORMS INC 3.11%

Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Sep 18, 2026.

Performance, window by window

MAGY and QYLG over each window. Every figure is an ETFIQ calculation with distributions reinvested. Source: ETFIQ.
WindowTotal returnCash paidAgainst the benchmark
MAGYQYLGMAGYQYLGMAGYQYLG
3 months+3.7%−0.1%6.1%2.1%−3.9 pts+2.4 pts
6 months+8.1%+19.6%12.9%4.6%−12.7 pts−4.7 pts
1 year+1.8%+22.2%26.5%17.4%−9.4 pts+0.5 pts
3 yearsnot published+76.2%not published51.1%not published−22.0 pts
Since launch+25.6%+122.0%42.0%75.3%−37.5 pts−52.0 pts
Open the live comparison on ETFIQ
MAGY and QYLG on the same fields, as of Sep 18, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
MAGY
Roundhill Magnificent Seven Covered Call ETF
Covered call on MAGS, paying weekly
QYLG
Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call & Growth ETF
Covered call on QQQ, paying monthly
IssuerRoundhillGlobal X
Strategycovered callcovered call
BenchmarkMagnificent Seven (MAGS)Nasdaq-100 (QQQ)
Paysweeklymonthly
Payout rate, annualized19.2%6.8%
Expense ratio0.99%0.35%
Cash paid, 1 year26.5%17.4%
Price change, 1 year−25.3%+2.4%
Total return, 1 year+1.8%+22.2%
Benchmark return, 1 year+11.2%+21.8%
Ahead or behind−9.4 pts+0.5 pts
Return of capital, latest estimatenot published96%
Age513 days2187 days
Net assets$102m$175m

MAGY in plain words

Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, MAGY paid 26.5% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price fell 25.3%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +1.8%. Magnificent Seven (MAGS) returned +11.2% over the same days, so a holder was behind by 9.4 pts. At its price on Sep 18, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 19.2%, paid weekly.

QYLG in plain words

Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, QYLG paid 17.4% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price rose 2.4%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned +22.2%. Nasdaq-100 (QQQ) returned +21.8% over the same days, so a holder was about even. At its price on Sep 18, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 6.8%, paid monthly. Global X estimates that 96% of the distribution paid Aug 27, 2026 was a return of capital (19a-1 notice, estimated, a tax characterization rather than a measure of erosion).

Questions people ask

Which paid more, MAGY or QYLG?
Over the year to Sep 18, 2026, MAGY paid 26.5% of its starting price in cash and QYLG paid 17.4%, so MAGY paid more. Cash paid is not the same as money made: the price change matters too.
Which returned more once distributions are counted, MAGY or QYLG?
With every distribution reinvested, MAGY returned +1.8% and QYLG returned +22.2% over the year to Sep 18, 2026, so QYLG returned more.
Which is cheaper, MAGY or QYLG?
MAGY charges 0.99% a year and QYLG charges 0.35%, so QYLG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.

Other comparisons

Where these figures came from

ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.

MAGY against QYLG, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 18, 2026. Every figure is calculated from a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, MAGY against QYLG, data as of Sep 18, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/income/magy-vs-qylg Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

How every figure is computed · Standards and sources