DUHP vs. QULL

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

DUHP (DFA Dimensional US High Profitability ETF) and QULL (ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - DUHP is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Dimensional, while QULL is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the MSCI USA Sector Neutral Quality Index. DUHP is actively managed, while QULL is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, DUHP returned 19.38%/yr vs 32.44%/yr for QULL. With a 0.95 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. DUHP charges 0.21%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for QULL.

Performance

DUHP vs. QULL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in DFA Dimensional US High Profitability ETF (DUHP) 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, DUHP achieves a 9.51% return, which is significantly lower than QULL's 15.23% return.

DUHP

• 1D: 0.27%
• 1M: 6.05%
• YTD: 9.51%
• 6M: 9.93%
• 1Y: 21.98%
• 3Y*: 19.38%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QULL

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: 7.79%
• YTD: 15.23%
• 6M: 15.73%
• 1Y: 40.54%
• 3Y*: 32.44%
• 5Y*: 16.69%
• 10Y*: —

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

DUHP vs. QULL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
DUHP DFA Dimensional US High Profitability ETF	9.51%	13.77%	19.49%	21.11%	-2.56%
QULL ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN	15.23%	17.61%	38.03%	57.07%	-22.86%

Correlation

The correlation between DUHP and QULL is 0.93, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.93
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 25, 2022	0.95

The correlation between DUHP and QULL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

DUHP vs. QULL — Risk / Return Rank

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

DUHP

DUHP Risk / Return Rank: 57
DUHP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
DUHP Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
DUHP Omega Ratio Rank: 56
DUHP Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
DUHP Martin Ratio Rank: 61

QULL

QULL Risk / Return Rank: 47
QULL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
QULL Sortino Ratio Rank: 46
QULL Omega Ratio Rank: 44
QULL Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
QULL Martin Ratio Rank: 56

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.

DUHP vs. QULL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for DFA Dimensional US High Profitability ETF (DUHP) 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.

	DUHP	QULL	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.97	1.67	+0.30
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.81	2.31	+0.50
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.28	+0.07
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.50	2.23	+0.26
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	10.94	9.90	+1.04
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

DUHP vs. QULL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DUHP Sharpe Ratio is 1.97, which is comparable to the QULL Sharpe Ratio of 1.67. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DUHP 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

	DUHP	QULL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.97	1.67	+0.30
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.47	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.87	0.56	+0.32

Drawdowns

DUHP vs. QULL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DUHP drawdown since its inception was -20.05%, smaller than the maximum QULL drawdown of -51.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DUHP and QULL.

Drawdown Indicators

	DUHP	QULL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.05%	-51.83%	+31.78%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.99%	-18.43%	+9.44%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.86%	-36.82%	+18.96%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-51.83%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.02%	+0.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.04%	-14.07%	+10.03%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.05%	4.15%	-2.10%

Volatility

DUHP vs. QULL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for DFA Dimensional US High Profitability ETF (DUHP) is 2.50%, while ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN (QULL) has a volatility of 4.89%. This indicates that DUHP experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QULL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	DUHP	QULL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.50%	4.89%	-2.39%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.63%	18.80%	-10.17%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.24%	24.46%	-13.22%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.24%	35.62%	-19.38%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.24%	35.16%	-18.92%

DUHP vs. QULL - Expense Ratio Comparison

DUHP has a 0.21% expense ratio, which is lower than QULL's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

DUHP vs. QULL - Dividend Comparison

DUHP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.97%, while QULL has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
DUHP DFA Dimensional US High Profitability ETF	0.97%	1.02%	1.13%	1.51%	1.10%
QULL ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DUHP and QULL in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, DUHP and QULL move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, DUHP or QULL?

QULL has higher volatility (4.89%) compared to DUHP (2.50%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DUHP dropped -20.05% vs QULL's -51.83%.

Which ETF is better, DUHP or QULL?

On 3-year performance, QULL leads with 32.44% vs 19.38% for DUHP. On fees, DUHP is cheaper at 0.21% per year. On volatility, DUHP has been the lower-risk option at 2.50%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, DUHP or QULL?

Over the 3-year period, QULL has performed better with a 32.44% return vs 19.38%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DUHP or QULL?

DUHP is cheaper with a 0.21% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for QULL.

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

DUHP has the higher dividend yield at 0.97%, compared with 0.00% for QULL.

What is the main difference between DUHP and QULL?

DUHP is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while QULL is Leveraged Equities. They also come from different issuers: Dimensional and UBS. Their fees differ too: 0.21% for DUHP and 0.95% for QULL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DUHP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.97 vs 1.67), 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.