BIB vs. COTG
BIB (ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Biotechnology) and COTG (Leverage Shares 2X Long COST Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. BIB is passively managed, while COTG is actively managed. At a correlation of -0.06, they often move in opposite directions. BIB charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for COTG.
Performance
BIB vs. COTG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BIB achieves a 4.15% return, which is significantly lower than COTG's 20.04% return.
BIB
- 1D
- 4.68%
- 1M
- 0.28%
- YTD
- 4.15%
- 6M
- 1.65%
- 1Y
- 85.17%
- 3Y*
- 16.12%
- 5Y*
- -0.11%
- 10Y*
- 5.85%
COTG
- 1D
- 2.32%
- 1M
- -9.84%
- YTD
- 20.04%
- 6M
- 10.13%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BIB vs. COTG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BIB ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Biotechnology | 4.15% | 36.22% |
COTG Leverage Shares 2X Long COST Daily ETF | 20.04% | -21.71% |
Correlation
The correlation between BIB and COTG is -0.06, 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 19, 2025 | -0.06 |
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
BIB vs. COTG — Risk / Return Rank
BIB
COTG
BIB vs. COTG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Biotechnology (BIB) and Leverage Shares 2X Long COST Daily ETF (COTG). 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.
| BIB | COTG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.32 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 5.06 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 16.05 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| BIB | COTG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.15 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.00 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.13 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.34 | -0.21 | +0.55 |
Drawdowns
BIB vs. COTG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BIB drawdown since its inception was -67.24%, which is greater than COTG's maximum drawdown of -25.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BIB and COTG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BIB | COTG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -67.24% | -25.69% | -41.55% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.92% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -45.30% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -65.86% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -66.20% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -23.43% | -21.71% | -1.72% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -32.74% | -8.42% | -24.32% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.32% | — | — |
Volatility
BIB vs. COTG - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BIB | COTG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 14.70% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 30.88% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 39.80% | 40.63% | -0.83% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 43.59% | 40.63% | +2.96% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 46.51% | 40.63% | +5.88% |
BIB vs. COTG - Expense Ratio Comparison
BIB has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than COTG's 0.75% expense ratio.
Dividends
BIB vs. COTG - Dividend Comparison
BIB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.59%, while COTG has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BIB ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Biotechnology | 0.59% | 0.77% | 1.69% | 0.07% | 0.03% |
COTG Leverage Shares 2X Long COST Daily ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BIB and COTG have a correlation of -0.06, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, COTG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
COTG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BIB.
BIB has the higher dividend yield at 0.59%, compared with 0.00% for COTG.
They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Leverage Shares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for BIB and 0.75% for COTG.
Find the right allocation for BIB and COTG
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