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

Performance

3FB.L vs. 3QQQ.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Leverage Shares 3x Facebook ETC GBP (3FB.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

3FB.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, 3FB.L achieves a -32.02% return, which is significantly lower than 3QQQ.L's 55.82% return.


3FB.L

1D
11.21%
1M
14.30%
YTD
-32.02%
6M
-33.99%
1Y
-51.73%
3Y*
32.30%
5Y*
-31.83%
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)

3FB.L vs. 3QQQ.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022
3FB.L
Leverage Shares 3x Facebook ETC GBP
-32.02%-29.04%176.41%1,413.26%-90.32%
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 3FB.L and 3QQQ.L is 0.51, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


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

0.51

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

0.61

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

0.64

The correlation between 3FB.L and 3QQQ.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.51 (1 year) to 0.64 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

3FB.L vs. 3QQQ.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

3FB.L
3FB.L Risk / Return Rank: 55
Overall Rank
3FB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
Sharpe Ratio Rank
3FB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
Sortino Ratio Rank
3FB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 66
Omega Ratio Rank
3FB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
Calmar Ratio Rank
3FB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 44
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.

3FB.L vs. 3QQQ.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Leverage Shares 3x Facebook ETC GBP (3FB.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.


3FB.L3QQQ.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-2.44

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-2.99

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

0.96

1.40

-0.43

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

-0.66

2.56

-3.22

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

-1.11

5.32

-6.43

3FB.L vs. 3QQQ.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current 3FB.L Sharpe Ratio is -0.51, which is lower than the 3QQQ.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.93. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of 3FB.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


3FB.L3QQQ.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.51

1.93

-2.44

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.25

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

-0.22

0.55

-0.77

Drawdowns

3FB.L vs. 3QQQ.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum 3FB.L drawdown since its inception was -99.77%, 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 3FB.L and 3QQQ.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


3FB.L3QQQ.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-99.77%

-58.71%

-41.06%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-78.00%

-47.38%

-30.62%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-82.94%

-58.71%

-24.23%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-99.77%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-90.96%

-1.99%

-88.97%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-74.45%

-20.53%

-53.92%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

46.72%

22.84%

+23.88%

Volatility

3FB.L vs. 3QQQ.L - Volatility Comparison

Leverage Shares 3x Facebook ETC GBP (3FB.L) has a higher volatility of 21.78% compared to Leverage Shares 3x Long US Tech 100 ETP Securities (3QQQ.L) at 14.48%. This indicates that 3FB.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


3FB.L3QQQ.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

21.78%

14.48%

+7.30%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

78.08%

33.01%

+45.07%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

100.83%

63.04%

+37.79%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

126.34%

62.77%

+63.57%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

123.55%

62.77%

+60.78%

3FB.L vs. 3QQQ.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

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


Dividends

3FB.L vs. 3QQQ.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither 3FB.L nor 3QQQ.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


3FB.L and 3QQQ.L have a correlation of 0.51, 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 3FB.L.

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

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for 3FB.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