QYLD, XYLD, and RYLD all turn broad U.S. equity exposure into monthly option income, but their August 2026 results show why the underlying market still matters. QYLD and RYLD had nearly identical trailing yields—11.63% and 11.62%—while their three-year Price CAGR differed by 4.27 percentage points and Total Return CAGR differed by 4.96 points.
The direct answer is that yield did not separate these funds well. QYLD retained positive Price CAGR and the strongest Total Return CAGR; RYLD had negative Price CAGR and a negative Coverage Gap; XYLD offered a slightly lower yield with the shallowest drawdown and the only MEDIUM Stability label. That is a tradeoff among market exposure, income, retained return, and risk—not a ranking based on yield alone.
August 2026 comparison
| Measure | QYLD | XYLD | RYLD |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yield TTM | 11.63% | 10.44% | 11.62% |
| Price CAGR | 1.52% | 0.97% | -2.75% |
| Total Return CAGR | 14.56% | 12.58% | 9.60% |
| Coverage Gap | +2.93 pp | +2.14 pp | -2.02 pp |
| Payout Support Risk | LOW | LOW | LOW |
| Stability | LOW | MEDIUM | LOW |
| Max Drawdown | -9.25% | -7.12% | -9.95% |
| Standard deviation | 8.07% | 6.51% | 8.97% |
| Beta | 0.48 | 0.41 | 0.52 |
All three rows use the same complete evaluation window, from August 31, 2023 through August 31, 2026. The values are annualized Dividend Decoder measures, not August returns. Keeping the window aligned is essential: otherwise a difference in start date could masquerade as a difference in fund behavior.
Why are these reasonable peers?
Global X describes QYLD as a Nasdaq-100 covered-call fund, XYLD as an S&P 500 covered-call fund, and RYLD as the Russell 2000 counterpart. Each combines an equity portfolio with index call writing, which can generate option premium while limiting some upside participation.
That shared income engine makes the comparison useful. The different indexes keep it honest. QYLD is tied to large Nasdaq-listed growth companies, XYLD to broad large-cap U.S. equities, and RYLD to small-cap equities. The option overlay changes each return path, but it does not erase the characteristics of those markets. An investor is choosing both an income process and an equity exposure.
How much income, and how variable?
The two highest trailing yields were almost indistinguishable: QYLD at 11.63% and RYLD at 11.62%. XYLD was lower at 10.44%, a difference of 1.19 points from QYLD. Those percentages summarize the preceding 12 months; they are not promised forward rates.
The latest distributions recorded through August month-end also do not form a common pattern. QYLD's August 24 distribution was $0.183 per share, up from $0.178 previously. RYLD paid $0.165, up from $0.161. XYLD paid $0.311, down from $0.409. Per-share amounts should not be compared across funds because their share prices differ, and one increase or decrease within a fund is not a durable payout trend.
The practical income question is therefore not “which number is largest today?” It is whether the investor wants the associated underlying exposure and can tolerate the path required to produce that income. A backward-looking yield cannot answer either part by itself.
What happened to invested capital?
QYLD had 1.52% Price CAGR and 14.56% Total Return CAGR. XYLD was close on price at 0.97%, with 12.58% total return. RYLD was the outlier: -2.75% Price CAGR and 9.60% Total Return CAGR.
Distributions helped all three overall results, but RYLD relied on them while its measured price trend remained negative. QYLD and XYLD retained modest positive price growth in the same window. This is the central distinction hidden by the QYLD/RYLD yield tie: the income percentages looked alike, but one fund finished with positive Price CAGR and almost five points more annualized total return.
August's rolling-window changes were constructive for all three. From July, QYLD's Price CAGR increased 2.07 points and Total Return CAGR increased 2.33 points. XYLD improved 1.11 and 1.17 points; RYLD improved 1.45 and 1.64 points. These are changes between two rolling three-year calculations, not single-month returns, and they do not establish a future direction.
How does income compare with economic return?
Coverage Gap compares Total Return CAGR with Yield TTM. QYLD's gap was +2.93 points, XYLD's +2.14 points, and RYLD's -2.02 points. A positive value means the measured total-return rate exceeded the trailing yield; a negative value means it did not.
This is a diagnostic relationship, not accounting distribution coverage. It does not identify net investment income, option profits, return of capital, or tax character, and it is not a distribution-cut forecast. It simply prevents a high income figure from being evaluated without the accompanying economic result.
QYLD and XYLD remained at LOW Payout Support Risk from July to August. RYLD moved from WATCH to LOW as its Coverage Gap improved by 1.66 points. That transition deserves context: RYLD had been WATCH in each frozen monthly observation from March through July, so August is only one observed month at LOW. It is evidence of improvement, not proof of a permanent reset.
What volatility and drawdown accompanied the result?
XYLD had the calmest measured profile: MEDIUM Stability, -7.12% Max Drawdown, 6.51% standard deviation, and 0.41 beta. QYLD and RYLD were both LOW Stability. QYLD's drawdown was -9.25%, standard deviation 8.07%, and beta 0.48; RYLD's were -9.95%, 8.97%, and 0.52.
The measurements point in the same general direction—XYLD experienced the shallowest decline and lowest variability—but none is a guarantee. Beta describes sensitivity within the calculation framework, standard deviation describes variation, and Max Drawdown records the deepest peak-to-trough loss in the window. Each answers a different risk question.
XYLD's lower trailing yield therefore came with something observable: the strongest Stability label and shallower measured drawdown. RYLD's yield matched QYLD's, but its capital and stability measures did not.
How I would frame the choice
Start with the desired equity exposure. A Nasdaq-100, S&P 500, or Russell 2000 allocation is a substantive portfolio choice even when the funds use similar call-writing mechanics. Then ask whether the income result was accompanied by positive Price CAGR, how much of the yield reached total return, and what drawdown occurred along the way.
On the August 2026 evidence, QYLD paired the highest total return with positive Price CAGR; XYLD paired a lower yield with the most stable measured path; RYLD paired near-QYLD income with weaker capital retention and total return. None of those relationships is permanent, and the snapshot does not turn one fund into a universal answer.
The durable lesson is that similar distribution yields do not create similar investments. The Dividend Decoder can keep the four questions—income, capital growth, payout support, and stability—visible as later monthly observations arrive.
Note: Metrics are exported from Dividend Decoder as a partial snapshot; not investment advice.