AMUB vs. QULL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

AMUB (ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B) and QULL (ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - AMUB is a MLPs fund tracking the Alerian MLP Index, while QULL is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the MSCI USA Sector Neutral Quality Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, AMUB returned 12.34%/yr vs 16.15%/yr for QULL. At a 0.36 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. AMUB charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for QULL.

Performance

AMUB vs. QULL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B (AMUB) and ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN (QULL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AMUB achieves a 16.97% return, which is significantly higher than QULL's 14.81% return.

AMUB

• 1D: -0.23%
• 1M: -2.08%
• YTD: 16.97%
• 6M: 15.25%
• 1Y: 15.77%
• 3Y*: 15.80%
• 5Y*: 12.34%
• 10Y*: 3.05%

QULL

• 1D: -0.36%
• 1M: 8.71%
• YTD: 14.81%
• 6M: 14.51%
• 1Y: 38.22%
• 3Y*: 32.28%
• 5Y*: 16.15%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

AMUB vs. QULL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
AMUB ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B	16.97%	2.05%	15.68%	16.89%	21.91%	17.20%
QULL ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN	14.81%	17.61%	38.03%	57.07%	-42.00%	51.36%

Correlation

The correlation between AMUB and QULL is 0.07, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.07
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.26
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.36
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 8, 2021	0.36

Over the past year, the correlation between AMUB and QULL has dropped to 0.07 - well below their long-term average of 0.36, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

Return for Risk

AMUB vs. QULL — Risk / Return Rank

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

AMUB

AMUB Risk / Return Rank: 31
AMUB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 32
AMUB Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
AMUB Omega Ratio Rank: 30
AMUB Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
AMUB Martin Ratio Rank: 31

QULL

QULL Risk / Return Rank: 45
QULL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
QULL Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
QULL Omega Ratio Rank: 42
QULL Calmar Ratio Rank: 42
QULL Martin Ratio Rank: 54

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.

AMUB vs. QULL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B (AMUB) and ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN (QULL). 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.

	AMUB	QULL	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.18	1.57	-0.39
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.69	2.20	-0.52
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.27	-0.07
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.53	2.08	-0.55
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	4.52	9.22	-4.70
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AMUB vs. QULL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AMUB Sharpe Ratio is 1.18, which is comparable to the QULL Sharpe Ratio of 1.57. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AMUB and QULL, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	AMUB	QULL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.18	1.57	-0.39
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.61	0.46	+0.16
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.11	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.00	0.55	-0.55

Drawdowns

AMUB vs. QULL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AMUB drawdown since its inception was -79.46%, which is greater than QULL's maximum drawdown of -51.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AMUB and QULL.

Drawdown Indicators

	AMUB	QULL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-79.46%	-51.83%	-27.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.37%	-18.43%	+8.06%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.22%	-36.82%	+19.60%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.58%	-51.83%	+31.25%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-78.86%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.15%	-0.38%	-5.77%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-29.23%	-14.06%	-15.17%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.51%	4.15%	-0.64%

Volatility

AMUB vs. QULL - Volatility Comparison

ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B (AMUB) has a higher volatility of 5.40% compared to ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN (QULL) at 4.68%. This indicates that AMUB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QULL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AMUB	QULL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.40%	4.68%	+0.72%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.82%	18.79%	-8.97%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.60%	24.46%	-10.86%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.24%	35.62%	-15.38%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.09%	35.15%	-8.06%

AMUB vs. QULL - Expense Ratio Comparison

AMUB has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is lower than QULL's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

AMUB vs. QULL - Dividend Comparison

Neither AMUB nor QULL has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AMUB and QULL in my portfolio?

AMUB and QULL have a correlation of 0.07, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AMUB or QULL?

AMUB has higher volatility (5.40%) compared to QULL (4.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AMUB dropped -79.46% vs QULL's -51.83%.

Which ETF is better, AMUB or QULL?

On 5-year performance, QULL leads with 16.15% vs 12.34% for AMUB. On fees, AMUB is cheaper at 0.80% per year. On volatility, QULL has been the lower-risk option at 4.68%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AMUB or QULL?

Over the 5-year period, QULL has performed better with a 16.15% return vs 12.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AMUB or QULL?

AMUB is cheaper with a 0.80% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for QULL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AMUB or QULL?

AMUB and QULL have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between AMUB and QULL?

AMUB is categorized as MLPs, while QULL is Leveraged Equities. AMUB tracks Alerian MLP Index, while QULL tracks MSCI USA Sector Neutral Quality Index. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for AMUB and 0.95% for QULL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QULL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.57 vs 1.18), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.