PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
3NFL.L vs. QQQ5.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

3NFL.L vs. QQQ5.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Leverage Shares 3x Netflix ETP Securities GBP (3NFL.L) and Leverage Shares 5x Long Nasdaq 100 ETP Securities (QQQ5.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

3NFL.L is traded in GBp, while QQQ5.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the QQQ5.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, 3NFL.L achieves a -45.91% return, which is significantly lower than QQQ5.L's 92.70% return.


3NFL.L

1D
3.30%
1M
-19.80%
YTD
-45.91%
6M
-59.90%
1Y
-81.91%
3Y*
404.22%
5Y*
25.66%
10Y*

QQQ5.L

1D
-3.75%
1M
45.86%
YTD
92.70%
6M
80.04%
1Y
213.49%
3Y*
70.23%
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

3NFL.L vs. QQQ5.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
3NFL.L
Leverage Shares 3x Netflix ETP Securities GBP
-45.91%-39.94%323.42%22,926.07%-99.45%11.98%
QQQ5.L
Leverage Shares 5x Long Nasdaq 100 ETP Securities
92.70%-4.99%77.08%404.09%-95.60%14.33%

Correlation

The correlation between 3NFL.L and QQQ5.L is 0.11, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.11

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

0.39

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 15, 2021

0.48

Over the past year, the correlation between 3NFL.L and QQQ5.L has dropped to 0.11 - well below their long-term average of 0.48, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

3NFL.L vs. QQQ5.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
3NFL.L
QQQ5.L

Communication Services

100.0%
15.5%

Basic Materials

-

1.2%

Consumer Cyclical

-

12.2%

Consumer Defensive

-

7.6%

Energy

-

0.6%

Financial Services

-

0.2%

Healthcare

-

4.2%

Industrials

-

2.8%

Real Estate

-

0.1%

Technology

-

54.2%

Utilities

-

1.4%

Communication Services

3NFL.L
100.0%
QQQ5.L
15.5%

Basic Materials

3NFL.L

-

QQQ5.L
1.2%

Consumer Cyclical

3NFL.L

-

QQQ5.L
12.2%

Consumer Defensive

3NFL.L

-

QQQ5.L
7.6%

Energy

3NFL.L

-

QQQ5.L
0.6%

Financial Services

3NFL.L

-

QQQ5.L
0.2%

Healthcare

3NFL.L

-

QQQ5.L
4.2%

Industrials

3NFL.L

-

QQQ5.L
2.8%

Real Estate

3NFL.L

-

QQQ5.L
0.1%

Technology

3NFL.L

-

QQQ5.L
54.2%

Utilities

3NFL.L

-

QQQ5.L
1.4%

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

3NFL.L vs. QQQ5.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

3NFL.L
3NFL.L Risk / Return Rank: 11
Overall Rank
3NFL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
Sharpe Ratio Rank
3NFL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 11
Sortino Ratio Rank
3NFL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 11
Omega Ratio Rank
3NFL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 11
Calmar Ratio Rank
3NFL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 22
Martin Ratio Rank

QQQ5.L
QQQ5.L Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
QQQ5.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QQQ5.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 6262
Sortino Ratio Rank
QQQ5.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5858
Omega Ratio Rank
QQQ5.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7474
Calmar Ratio Rank
QQQ5.L Martin Ratio Rank: 5858
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.

3NFL.L vs. QQQ5.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Leverage Shares 3x Netflix ETP Securities GBP (3NFL.L) and Leverage Shares 5x Long Nasdaq 100 ETP Securities (QQQ5.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.


3NFL.LQQQ5.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-3.55

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-4.49

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

0.79

1.36

-0.57

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

-0.95

3.73

-4.68

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

-1.39

9.93

-11.31

3NFL.L vs. QQQ5.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current 3NFL.L Sharpe Ratio is -0.85, which is lower than the QQQ5.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.70. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of 3NFL.L and QQQ5.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


3NFL.LQQQ5.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.85

2.70

-3.55

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.01

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.01

-0.04

+0.05

Drawdowns

3NFL.L vs. QQQ5.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum 3NFL.L drawdown since its inception was -99.86%, roughly equal to the maximum QQQ5.L drawdown of -95.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for 3NFL.L and QQQ5.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


3NFL.LQQQ5.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-99.86%

-95.95%

-3.91%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-86.21%

-56.81%

-29.40%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-86.21%

-80.12%

-6.09%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-99.85%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-85.04%

-31.16%

-53.88%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-52.09%

-74.59%

+22.50%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

59.16%

21.41%

+37.75%

Volatility

3NFL.L vs. QQQ5.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Leverage Shares 3x Netflix ETP Securities GBP (3NFL.L) is 22.73%, while Leverage Shares 5x Long Nasdaq 100 ETP Securities (QQQ5.L) has a volatility of 24.57%. This indicates that 3NFL.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QQQ5.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


3NFL.LQQQ5.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

22.73%

24.57%

-1.84%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

78.67%

57.80%

+20.87%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

96.08%

78.52%

+17.56%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

3,347.19%

103.82%

+3,243.37%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

3,063.98%

103.82%

+2,960.16%

3NFL.L vs. QQQ5.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both 3NFL.L and QQQ5.L have an expense ratio of 0.75%.


Dividends

3NFL.L vs. QQQ5.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither 3NFL.L nor QQQ5.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


3NFL.L and QQQ5.L have a correlation of 0.11, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Both ETFs have the same 0.75% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

3NFL.L and QQQ5.L have the same expense ratio: 0.75% per year.

3NFL.L is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while QQQ5.L is Nasdaq-100. 3NFL.L tracks iSTOXX Leveraged 3X NFLX Index, while QQQ5.L tracks Invesco QQQ Trust.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for 3NFL.L and QQQ5.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