AVES vs. QLD

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

AVES (Avantis Emerging Markets Value ETF) and QLD (ProShares Ultra QQQ) are both exchange-traded funds - AVES is a Emerging Markets Equities fund actively managed by Avantis, while QLD is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index (200%). AVES is actively managed, while QLD is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, AVES returned 19.19%/yr vs 44.57%/yr for QLD. A 0.59 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. AVES charges 0.36%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for QLD.

Performance

AVES vs. QLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Avantis Emerging Markets Value ETF (AVES) and ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AVES achieves a 15.51% return, which is significantly lower than QLD's 32.65% return.

AVES

• 1D: 0.32%
• 1M: 0.12%
• YTD: 15.51%
• 6M: 18.20%
• 1Y: 31.51%
• 3Y*: 19.19%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QLD

• 1D: 1.30%
• 1M: -0.55%
• YTD: 32.65%
• 6M: 32.82%
• 1Y: 73.89%
• 3Y*: 44.57%
• 5Y*: 23.24%
• 10Y*: 35.67%

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

AVES vs. QLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
AVES Avantis Emerging Markets Value ETF	15.51%	30.49%	4.50%	16.79%	-16.04%	0.95%
QLD ProShares Ultra QQQ	32.65%	30.36%	42.82%	117.72%	-60.52%	21.18%

Correlation

The correlation between AVES and QLD is 0.71, 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	0.71
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.58
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 30, 2021	0.59

The correlation between AVES and QLD shifts across timeframes, from 0.58 (3 years) to 0.71 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

AVES vs. QLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AVES	QLD
Financial Services	25.3%	0.2%
Technology	21.4%	53.8%
Industrials	13.3%	2.8%
Basic Materials	9.8%	1.1%
Consumer Cyclical	9.6%	12.3%
Communication Services	5.3%	15.8%
Energy	4.0%	0.6%
Consumer Defensive	3.2%	7.7%
Real Estate	2.4%	0.1%
Healthcare	2.1%	4.2%
Utilities	1.7%	1.4%

Return for Risk

AVES vs. QLD — Risk / Return Rank

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

AVES

AVES Risk / Return Rank: 54
AVES Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
AVES Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
AVES Omega Ratio Rank: 58
AVES Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
AVES Martin Ratio Rank: 55

QLD

QLD Risk / Return Rank: 64
QLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
QLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
QLD Omega Ratio Rank: 64
QLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
QLD Martin Ratio Rank: 61

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.

AVES vs. QLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Avantis Emerging Markets Value ETF (AVES) and ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	AVES	QLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.64	2.04	-0.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.22	2.48	-0.27
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.33	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.32	2.78	-0.45
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.40	9.46	-1.06

AVES vs. QLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AVES Sharpe Ratio is 1.64, which is comparable to the QLD Sharpe Ratio of 2.04. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AVES and QLD, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

AVES vs. QLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AVES drawdown since its inception was -27.40%, smaller than the maximum QLD drawdown of -83.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AVES and QLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	AVES	QLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.40%	-83.13%	+55.73%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.90%	-25.13%	+12.23%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.50%	-42.29%	+23.79%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-63.68%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-63.68%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.45%	-7.11%	+4.66%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.70%	-18.16%	+10.46%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.56%	7.36%	-3.80%

Volatility

AVES vs. QLD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Avantis Emerging Markets Value ETF (AVES) is 8.89%, while ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) has a volatility of 15.14%. This indicates that AVES experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QLD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AVES	QLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.89%	15.14%	-6.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.88%	27.51%	-11.63%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.34%	34.29%	-15.95%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.20%	45.07%	-27.87%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.20%	44.73%	-27.53%

AVES vs. QLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

AVES has a 0.36% expense ratio, which is lower than QLD's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

AVES vs. QLD - Dividend Comparison

AVES's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.53%, more than QLD's 0.13% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
AVES Avantis Emerging Markets Value ETF	3.53%	3.17%	4.09%	3.96%	3.70%	0.62%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QLD ProShares Ultra QQQ	0.13%	0.17%	0.25%	0.33%	0.31%	0.00%	0.00%	0.13%	0.06%	0.02%	0.21%	0.11%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AVES and QLD in my portfolio?

AVES and QLD have a correlation of 0.71, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AVES or QLD?

QLD has higher volatility (15.14%) compared to AVES (8.89%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AVES dropped -27.40% vs QLD's -83.13%.

Which ETF is better, AVES or QLD?

On 3-year performance, QLD leads with 44.57% vs 19.19% for AVES. On fees, AVES is cheaper at 0.36% per year. On volatility, AVES has been the lower-risk option at 8.89%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AVES or QLD?

Over the 3-year period, QLD has performed better with a 44.57% return vs 19.19%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AVES or QLD?

AVES is cheaper with a 0.36% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for QLD.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AVES or QLD?

AVES has the higher dividend yield at 3.53%, compared with 0.13% for QLD.

What is the main difference between AVES and QLD?

AVES is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while QLD is Leveraged Equities. They also come from different issuers: Avantis and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.36% for AVES and 0.95% for QLD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.04 vs 1.64), 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.