BIB vs. QLD

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BIB (ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Biotechnology) and QLD (ProShares Ultra QQQ) are both Leveraged Equities funds from ProShares - BIB tracks the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index (200%) while QLD tracks the NASDAQ-100 Index (200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, BIB returned 9.71%/yr vs 36.27%/yr for QLD. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

BIB vs. QLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Biotechnology (BIB) 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, BIB achieves a 12.50% return, which is significantly lower than QLD's 29.58% return. Over the past 10 years, BIB has underperformed QLD with an annualized return of 9.71%, while QLD has yielded a comparatively higher 36.27% annualized return.

BIB

• 1D: 1.97%
• 1M: 9.49%
• YTD: 12.50%
• 6M: 8.62%
• 1Y: 100.86%
• 3Y*: 19.65%
• 5Y*: -0.74%
• 10Y*: 9.71%

QLD

• 1D: -6.61%
• 1M: -2.02%
• YTD: 29.58%
• 6M: 26.13%
• 1Y: 66.80%
• 3Y*: 43.61%
• 5Y*: 21.41%
• 10Y*: 36.27%

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

BIB vs. QLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
BIB ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Biotechnology	12.50%	59.21%	-9.84%	-1.06%	-28.85%	-6.02%	39.79%	46.71%	-24.93%	40.49%
QLD ProShares Ultra QQQ	29.58%	30.36%	42.82%	117.72%	-60.52%	54.67%	88.90%	81.69%	-8.31%	70.34%

Correlation

The correlation between BIB and QLD is 0.37, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.37
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.44
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.53
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.59
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 8, 2010	0.62

Over the past year, the correlation between BIB and QLD has dropped to 0.37 - well below their long-term average of 0.62, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

BIB vs. QLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BIB	QLD
Healthcare	62.9%	3.7%
Financial Services	6.8%	0.2%
Basic Materials	-	1.0%
Communication Services	-	14.3%
Consumer Cyclical	-	11.4%
Consumer Defensive	-	6.4%
Energy	-	0.5%
Industrials	-	2.6%
Real Estate	-	0.1%
Technology	-	58.7%
Utilities	-	1.2%

Return for Risk

BIB vs. QLD — Risk / Return Rank

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

BIB

BIB Risk / Return Rank: 80
BIB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
BIB Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
BIB Omega Ratio Rank: 65
BIB Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
BIB Martin Ratio Rank: 88

QLD

QLD Risk / Return Rank: 53
QLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
QLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
QLD Omega Ratio Rank: 51
QLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 56
QLD 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.

BIB vs. QLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Biotechnology (BIB) 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.

	BIB	QLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.51	1.88	+0.63
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.08	2.33	+0.74
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.31	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.99	2.67	+3.32
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.30	9.05	+9.25

BIB vs. QLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BIB Sharpe Ratio is 2.51, which is higher than the QLD Sharpe Ratio of 1.88. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BIB 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

BIB vs. QLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BIB drawdown since its inception was -67.24%, smaller than the maximum QLD drawdown of -83.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BIB and QLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	BIB	QLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-67.24%	-83.13%	+15.89%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.92%	-25.13%	+8.21%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-45.30%	-42.29%	-3.01%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-65.86%	-63.68%	-2.18%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-66.20%	-63.68%	-2.52%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-17.29%	-9.26%	-8.03%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-32.71%	-18.14%	-14.57%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.53%	7.40%	-1.87%

Volatility

BIB vs. QLD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Biotechnology (BIB) is 13.56%, while ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) has a volatility of 18.22%. This indicates that BIB 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

	BIB	QLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.56%	18.22%	-4.66%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	31.65%	28.95%	+2.70%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	40.43%	35.77%	+4.66%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	43.60%	45.34%	-1.74%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	46.39%	44.80%	+1.59%

BIB vs. QLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both BIB and QLD have an expense ratio of 0.95%.

Dividends

BIB vs. QLD - Dividend Comparison

BIB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.55%, more than QLD's 0.13% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BIB ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Biotechnology	0.55%	0.77%	1.69%	0.07%	0.03%	0.00%	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 BIB and QLD in my portfolio?

BIB and QLD have a correlation of 0.37, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BIB or QLD?

QLD has higher volatility (18.22%) compared to BIB (13.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BIB dropped -67.24% vs QLD's -83.13%.

Which ETF is better, BIB or QLD?

On 10-year performance, QLD leads with 36.27% vs 9.71% for BIB. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, BIB has been the lower-risk option at 13.56%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BIB or QLD?

Over the 10-year period, QLD has performed better with a 36.27% return vs 9.71%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BIB or QLD?

BIB and QLD have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.

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

BIB has the higher dividend yield at 0.55%, compared with 0.13% for QLD.

What is the main difference between BIB and QLD?

BIB tracks NASDAQ Biotechnology Index (200%), while QLD tracks NASDAQ-100 Index (200%).

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BIB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.51 vs 1.88), 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.