PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
2MSF.L vs. 3QQQ.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

2MSF.L vs. 3QQQ.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Leverage Shares 2x Microsoft ETC A GBP (2MSF.L) and Leverage Shares 3x Long US Tech 100 ETP Securities (3QQQ.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

2MSF.L is traded in GBp, while 3QQQ.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the 3QQQ.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, 2MSF.L achieves a -27.61% return, which is significantly lower than 3QQQ.L's 55.82% return.


2MSF.L

1D
2.03%
1M
9.24%
YTD
-27.61%
6M
-26.03%
1Y
-25.08%
3Y*
0.32%
5Y*
10.56%
10Y*

3QQQ.L

1D
-1.99%
1M
28.14%
YTD
55.82%
6M
48.52%
1Y
122.07%
3Y*
52.15%
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

2MSF.L vs. 3QQQ.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022
2MSF.L
Leverage Shares 2x Microsoft ETC A GBP
-27.61%4.50%17.75%106.56%-25.82%
3QQQ.L
Leverage Shares 3x Long US Tech 100 ETP Securities
55.82%5.78%63.73%172.86%-55.10%

Correlation

The correlation between 2MSF.L and 3QQQ.L is 0.47, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.47

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.62

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 7, 2022

0.67

Over the past year, the correlation between 2MSF.L and 3QQQ.L has dropped to 0.47 - well below their long-term average of 0.67, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

2MSF.L vs. 3QQQ.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

2MSF.L
2MSF.L Risk / Return Rank: 66
Overall Rank
2MSF.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
Sharpe Ratio Rank
2MSF.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
Sortino Ratio Rank
2MSF.L Omega Ratio Rank: 77
Omega Ratio Rank
2MSF.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
Calmar Ratio Rank
2MSF.L Martin Ratio Rank: 66
Martin Ratio Rank

3QQQ.L
3QQQ.L Risk / Return Rank: 5353
Overall Rank
3QQQ.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5656
Sharpe Ratio Rank
3QQQ.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5757
Sortino Ratio Rank
3QQQ.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6565
Omega Ratio Rank
3QQQ.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 5151
Calmar Ratio Rank
3QQQ.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3535
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

2MSF.L vs. 3QQQ.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Leverage Shares 2x Microsoft ETC A GBP (2MSF.L) and Leverage Shares 3x Long US Tech 100 ETP Securities (3QQQ.L). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.


2MSF.L3QQQ.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-2.30

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-2.83

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

0.98

1.40

-0.42

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

-0.37

2.56

-2.94

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

-0.63

5.32

-5.96

2MSF.L vs. 3QQQ.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current 2MSF.L Sharpe Ratio is -0.38, which is lower than the 3QQQ.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.93. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of 2MSF.L and 3QQQ.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


2MSF.L3QQQ.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.38

1.93

-2.30

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.20

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.55

0.55

0.00

Drawdowns

2MSF.L vs. 3QQQ.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum 2MSF.L drawdown since its inception was -66.77%, which is greater than 3QQQ.L's maximum drawdown of -58.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for 2MSF.L and 3QQQ.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


2MSF.L3QQQ.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-66.77%

-58.71%

-8.06%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-66.77%

-47.38%

-19.39%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-66.77%

-58.71%

-8.06%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-66.77%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-54.46%

-1.99%

-52.47%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-18.72%

-20.53%

+1.81%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

39.60%

22.84%

+16.76%

Volatility

2MSF.L vs. 3QQQ.L - Volatility Comparison

Leverage Shares 2x Microsoft ETC A GBP (2MSF.L) has a higher volatility of 20.94% compared to Leverage Shares 3x Long US Tech 100 ETP Securities (3QQQ.L) at 14.48%. This indicates that 2MSF.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than 3QQQ.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


2MSF.L3QQQ.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

20.94%

14.48%

+6.46%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

48.79%

33.01%

+15.78%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

66.44%

63.04%

+3.40%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

53.38%

62.77%

-9.39%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

52.69%

62.77%

-10.08%

2MSF.L vs. 3QQQ.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

2MSF.L has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than 3QQQ.L's 0.01% expense ratio.


Dividends

2MSF.L vs. 3QQQ.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither 2MSF.L nor 3QQQ.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


2MSF.L and 3QQQ.L have a correlation of 0.47, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, 3QQQ.L is cheaper at 0.01% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

3QQQ.L is cheaper with a 0.01% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for 2MSF.L.

Their fees differ too: 0.75% for 2MSF.L and 0.01% for 3QQQ.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for 2MSF.L and 3QQQ.L

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer