PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
BDCX vs. QULL
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

BDCX vs. QULL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5X Leveraged MVIS BDC Index ETN (BDCX) and ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN (QULL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BDCX achieves a -10.75% return, which is significantly lower than QULL's 18.31% return.


BDCX

1D
-0.19%
1M
-2.20%
6M
-9.86%
YTD
-10.75%
1Y
-18.23%
3Y*
0.23%
5Y*
2.22%
10Y*
ALL TIME*
11.61%

QULL

1D
0.63%
1M
0.26%
6M
14.62%
YTD
18.31%
1Y
38.52%
3Y*
27.71%
5Y*
14.44%
10Y*
ALL TIME*
19.45%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$38.67K$35.86K$42.25K
$1.11K$1.49K$2.54K

BDCX vs. QULL - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
BDCX
ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5X Leveraged MVIS BDC Index ETN
-10.75%-10.42%15.32%35.33%-17.67%38.79%
QULL
ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN
18.31%17.61%38.03%57.07%-42.00%51.36%

Correlation

The correlation between BDCX and QULL is 0.45, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.45

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.47

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.54

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 5, 2021

0.53

The correlation between BDCX and QULL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.45 to 0.54 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

BDCX vs. QULL — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

BDCX
BDCX Risk / Return Rank: 33
Overall Rank
BDCX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BDCX Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
Sortino Ratio Rank
BDCX Omega Ratio Rank: 44
Omega Ratio Rank
BDCX Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
Calmar Ratio Rank
BDCX Martin Ratio Rank: 22
Martin Ratio Rank

QULL
QULL Risk / Return Rank: 6161
Overall Rank
QULL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6262
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QULL Sortino Ratio Rank: 6161
Sortino Ratio Rank
QULL Omega Ratio Rank: 5757
Omega Ratio Rank
QULL Calmar Ratio Rank: 5555
Calmar Ratio Rank
QULL Martin Ratio Rank: 7070
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

BDCX vs. QULL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5X Leveraged MVIS BDC Index ETN (BDCX) 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.

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.


BDCXQULLDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-2.14

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-2.95

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

0.90

1.25

-0.35

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

-0.74

1.96

-2.71

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

-1.28

8.61

-9.89

BDCX vs. QULL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BDCX Sharpe Ratio is -0.69, which is lower than the QULL Sharpe Ratio of 1.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BDCX 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.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

BDCX vs. QULL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BDCX drawdown since its inception was -34.96%, smaller than the maximum QULL drawdown of -51.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BDCX and QULL.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


BDCXQULLDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-34.96%

-51.83%

+16.87%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-26.35%

-18.43%

-7.92%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-33.39%

-36.82%

+3.43%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-34.96%

-51.83%

+16.87%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-27.46%

-1.05%

-26.41%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-10.50%

-13.70%

+3.20%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

15.28%

4.19%

+11.09%

Volatility

BDCX vs. QULL - Volatility Comparison

ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5X Leveraged MVIS BDC Index ETN (BDCX) has a higher volatility of 7.16% compared to ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN (QULL) at 5.60%. This indicates that BDCX'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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


BDCXQULLDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.16%

5.60%

+1.56%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

22.67%

19.43%

+3.24%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

28.36%

25.05%

+3.31%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

26.69%

35.65%

-8.96%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

26.87%

34.83%

-7.96%

BDCX vs. QULL - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both BDCX and QULL have an expense ratio of 0.95%.


Dividends

BDCX vs. QULL - Dividend Comparison

BDCX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 21.64%, while QULL has not paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM202520242023202220212020
BDCX
ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5X Leveraged MVIS BDC Index ETN
21.64%19.17%15.28%14.71%17.47%11.52%6.32%
QULL
ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


BDCX and QULL have a correlation of 0.45, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

BDCX has higher volatility (7.16%) compared to QULL (5.60%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BDCX dropped -34.96% vs QULL's -51.83%.

On 5-year performance, QULL leads with 14.44% vs 2.22% for BDCX. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, QULL has been the lower-risk option at 5.60%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, QULL has performed better with a 14.44% return vs 2.22%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

BDCX and QULL have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.

BDCX has the higher dividend yield at 21.64%, compared with 0.00% for QULL.

BDCX is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while QULL is Quality Factor. BDCX tracks MVIS US Business Development Companies (150%), while QULL tracks MSCI USA Sector Neutral Quality Index.

QULL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.45 vs -0.69), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for BDCX and QULL

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