People comparing QYLD, XYLD or RYLD with a Canadian "same index" ticker usually want to know which Nasdaq-100, S&P 500 or Russell 2000 covered-call ETF paid a cheque the filings supported. This page answers that at the lineup level: what mapped 2025 financial statements show for Global X's Canada shelf versus the US buy-write twins — Dist. coverage, not yield.
That is accrual earned versus paid. It is not a ranking of issuers, not a CAD-versus-USD recommendation, and not a view on whether any of these funds belongs in a portfolio.
Two shelves, not one product
Global X is a brand that spans two filing regimes. QYLD, XYLD and RYLD are US-listed funds that track Cboe buy-write indexes. QQCC, USCC and RSCC are Canada-listed funds from Global X Investments Canada that hold the same three indexes and run their own covered-call programme.
They share a name pattern. They do not share a prospectus, a fiscal year, or a write style.
The US funds write a succession of one-month at-the-money index calls with notional equal to the equity book — the classic 100% buy-write. Global X Canada describes the standard `…CC` funds as a dynamic programme that generally writes out-of-the-money calls on up to about half the portfolio. Those are structural facts from the issuers. They are not Dist. coverage figures.
For the levered Canadian siblings — QQCL, USCL and the rest of the `…L` series — see the enhanced covered call note. The two-ticker Nasdaq comparison lives on QQCL vs QYLD. This page stays at the standard twins plus the rest of the mapped shelf.
Read the period label first
Canadian mappings here use calendar 2025 (a stub label means a partial launch window). The US buy-write funds are mapped to the fiscal year ended 31 October 2025.
Earned and paid are consistent inside each window. They are not a same-day race. Treat the cross-border gaps as directional.
The 2025 base rate
CoverCall Ledger lists 47 funds under the Global X issuer tag. After setting aside a non-ticker stub and two daily-writing funds that belong in the 0DTE note rather than this monthly shelf, 36 funds are mapped to a 2025 filing.
| Shelf | Mapped | Covered (100%+) |
|---|---|---|
| Global X Canada | 30 | 21 |
| Global X US buy-write (QYLD family + DJIA, XYLG, RYLG) | 6 | 0 |
Twenty-one of thirty Canadian mappings cleared 100%. None of the six mapped US funds did. The closest US print is DJIA at 92% — $13.3 million earned against $14.5 million paid for FY Oct 2025.
Across the whole site, 143 of 314 mapped funds read Covered. The Canadian Global X rate sits above that base rate; the US buy-write pocket sits below it. That is a design cluster, not a nationality score.
Same index, different write, different coverage
Hold the index constant and compare the standard Canadian fund with the US buy-write twin.
| Index | Canada (calendar 2025) | United States (FY Oct 2025) |
|---|---|---|
| Nasdaq-100 | QQCC Covered — $63.9M vs $49.6M | QYLD 73% — $780.0M vs $1.07B |
| S&P 500 | USCC Covered — $54.1M vs $37.0M | XYLD 76% — $292.0M vs $385.5M |
| Russell 2000 | RSCC 83% — $1.0M vs $1.2M | RYLD 61% — $99.6M vs $162.4M |
Three indexes, three times the Canadian twin reads higher. QQCC earned roughly 1.3x what it distributed; USCC roughly 1.5x. QYLD covered about 73 cents of each dollar paid, XYLD about 76 cents, RYLD about 61 cents.
The dollar columns are not comparable across the border. QYLD is an eight-billion-dollar fund; QQCC is a few hundred million. The ratio is the comparable number, and even that sits on mismatched fiscal windows.
A plausible structural reading — presented as a candidate, not a proof — is the overlay. A 100% at-the-money write sells most of a rally back as realised losses on the short calls, so there is less unrealised profit left on the equity book to set against the cheque. A dynamic programme that generally writes on half the book, and writes out of the money, keeps more of that cushion. Distribution policy differs too: the US funds describe a monthly cap around the lower of half the premiums or 1% of NAV, which can still outrun period profit in a strong tape.
None of that is Dist. coverage. Coverage is only the filing ratio.
The US "Growth" variants wrote less and still missed
XYLG and RYLG are the Covered Call & Growth siblings. The issuer describes them as writing at-the-money index calls on about 50% of the portfolio — closer to the Canadian write ratio, still a systematic ATM buy-write.
| Ticker | Index | Dist. coverage (FY Oct 2025) | Earned vs paid |
|---|---|---|---|
| XYLG | S&P 500 | 59% | $7.8M vs $13.2M |
| RYLG | Russell 2000 | 51% | $755 thousand vs $1.5M |
A lighter write did not, on these mapped windows, produce a Covered print. QYLG is not on CoverCall Ledger, so there is no Nasdaq Growth row to quote.
Where the Canadian shelf missed
Most of the Canadian misses are not the big index twins.
| Ticker | Sleeve | Dist. coverage | Earned vs paid |
|---|---|---|---|
| USCL | Enhanced S&P 500 | 98% | $32.3M vs $32.9M |
| ENCC | Canadian oil & gas | 94% | $71.0M vs $75.2M |
| RNCC | Canadian telecom (stub) | 93% | $0.5M vs $0.5M |
| RSCC | Russell 2000 | 83% | $1.0M vs $1.2M |
| PAYS | Short-term government bond overlay | 44% | $2.2M vs $5.1M |
| BCCC | Bitcoin (stub) | 0% | Loss of $1.6M vs $1.5M paid |
USCL is a near-miss on a line the table draws at exactly 100%. ENCC is a large energy sleeve that came in a few points short. PAYS is the bond-overlay pattern already noted in the Canadian high-yield guide. BCCC and its enhanced sibling BCCL reported a period loss, so coverage reads 0% — no period profit to set against the cheque, not a tax label.
The gold producers sleeve is the other end of the scale. GLCC earned $344.6 million against $34.6 million paid for calendar 2025 — a very wide cushion that still only displays as Covered.
Canadian banks (BKCC) also read Covered: $63.7 million earned against $28.3 million paid.
Coverage is not the ROC question
Global X's US fact sheets still lead with trailing distribution rates in the low teens. A June 2026 QYLD fact-sheet note estimated 97.45% of the then-current distribution as return of capital.
That estimate is a tax-character snapshot for one distribution. Dist. coverage for QYLD's mapped FY Oct 2025 year is 73% — period profit of $780.0 million against $1.07 billion paid. The two numbers can be quoted in the same paragraph and still answer different questions.
Return of capital vs "earned the cheque" is the longer version of that distinction.
Tape is not coverage
On the exchange tape through 2 October 2026, 2026 cash year-to-date (price change plus cash distributions, not reinvested) reads QQCC +21.4% against QYLD +14.5%, and USCC +15.7% against XYLD +10.6%. RYLD is +11.2%; RSCC has no tape YTD on the site.
Those prints are market tape. They are not Dist. coverage, and a stronger 2026 tape does not rewrite a 2025 filing.
Not mapped yet
Several Global X funds launched during 2026 — including the Canadian commodity and miners sleeves CMCC, SVCC and URCC, and the US Income Edge and ether names EDGQ, EDGX and EHCC. Their pages are tape-only: price and last distribution from the exchange, no Dist. coverage percentage.
CoverCall Ledger does not invent a figure from yield, a sibling filing, or a headline rate.
How to check this yourself
1. Open the live coverage table and filter by ticker or country.
2. On each fund page, read the period label before the percentage.
3. Compare earned versus paid in dollars, especially when one fund is a hundred times larger than the other.
4. Confirm overlay intensity in the issuer's own ETF Facts or prospectus — 100% ATM buy-write, 50% Growth write, or Canada's dynamic programme.
5. Treat any row without a mapped filing as tape-only.
For US option-income names outside this family, see JEPI vs JEPQ vs QYLD. For the labels themselves, see How to read Dist. coverage.
Bottom line
On the mapped 2025 windows, Global X's Canadian standard twins on the Nasdaq-100 and S&P 500 read Covered, and the Russell 2000 twin read 83%. The US buy-write twins on those same indexes read 73%, 76% and 61%. That is a backward-looking fact about two different filing years and two different write styles — not a forecast and not a recommendation.
Educational research from public issuer filings. Not investment, tax or trading advice — confirm every figure against the issuer's own documents before acting on it.