EMDV vs. QLD

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EMDV (ProShares MSCI Emerging Markets Dividend Growers ETF) and QLD (ProShares Ultra QQQ) are both exchange-traded funds - EMDV is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Dividend Masters Index, while QLD is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index (200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, EMDV returned 2.64%/yr vs 36.10%/yr for QLD. A 0.50 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EMDV charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for QLD.

Performance

EMDV vs. QLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares MSCI Emerging Markets Dividend Growers ETF (EMDV) 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, EMDV achieves a 1.17% return, which is significantly lower than QLD's 42.06% return. Over the past 10 years, EMDV has underperformed QLD with an annualized return of 2.64%, while QLD has yielded a comparatively higher 36.10% annualized return.

EMDV

• 1D: -1.57%
• 1M: 0.78%
• YTD: 1.17%
• 6M: 1.13%
• 1Y: 7.88%
• 3Y*: 2.77%
• 5Y*: -3.15%
• 10Y*: 2.64%

QLD

• 1D: -0.53%
• 1M: 21.54%
• YTD: 42.06%
• 6M: 37.45%
• 1Y: 85.49%
• 3Y*: 50.15%
• 5Y*: 25.75%
• 10Y*: 36.10%

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

EMDV vs. QLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EMDV ProShares MSCI Emerging Markets Dividend Growers ETF	1.17%	11.90%	0.06%	-1.03%	-18.19%	1.11%	-0.09%	14.93%	-7.52%	26.98%
QLD ProShares Ultra QQQ	42.06%	30.36%	42.82%	117.72%	-60.52%	54.67%	88.90%	81.69%	-8.31%	70.34%

Correlation

The correlation between EMDV and QLD is 0.57, 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	0.57
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.44
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.48
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.51
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 28, 2016	0.50

The correlation between EMDV and QLD shifts across timeframes, from 0.44 (3 years) to 0.57 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EMDV vs. QLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMDV	QLD
Financial Services	24.1%	0.2%
Technology	22.5%	53.8%
Consumer Defensive	16.4%	7.7%
Utilities	8.3%	1.4%
Healthcare	8.2%	4.2%
Consumer Cyclical	6.2%	12.3%
Communication Services	6.2%	15.8%
Industrials	6.2%	2.8%
Basic Materials	1.9%	1.1%
Energy	-	0.6%
Real Estate	-	0.1%

Return for Risk

EMDV vs. QLD — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMDV

EMDV Risk / Return Rank: 22
EMDV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
EMDV Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
EMDV Omega Ratio Rank: 20
EMDV Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
EMDV Martin Ratio Rank: 24

QLD

QLD Risk / Return Rank: 69
QLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
QLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
QLD Omega Ratio Rank: 67
QLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
QLD Martin Ratio Rank: 64

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.

EMDV vs. QLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares MSCI Emerging Markets Dividend Growers ETF (EMDV) 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.

	EMDV	QLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.71	2.70	-2.00
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.07	3.16	-2.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	1.41	-0.28
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.09	3.42	-2.33
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.33	11.92	-8.59
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EMDV vs. QLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMDV Sharpe Ratio is 0.71, which is lower than the QLD Sharpe Ratio of 2.70. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMDV 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	EMDV	QLD	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.71	2.70	-2.00
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.21	0.58	-0.78
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.15	0.81	-0.67
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.22	0.60	-0.38

Drawdowns

EMDV vs. QLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMDV drawdown since its inception was -39.20%, smaller than the maximum QLD drawdown of -83.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMDV and QLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMDV	QLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-39.20%	-83.13%	+43.93%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.24%	-25.13%	+17.89%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.71%	-42.29%	+21.58%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-34.97%	-63.68%	+28.71%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-39.20%	-63.68%	+24.48%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-14.80%	-0.53%	-14.27%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.55%	-18.17%	+4.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.37%	7.20%	-4.83%

Volatility

EMDV vs. QLD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ProShares MSCI Emerging Markets Dividend Growers ETF (EMDV) is 4.17%, while ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) has a volatility of 8.90%. This indicates that EMDV 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

	EMDV	QLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.17%	8.90%	-4.73%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.21%	24.08%	-14.87%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.21%	31.85%	-20.64%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.42%	44.74%	-29.32%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.26%	44.56%	-26.30%

EMDV vs. QLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMDV has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than QLD's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMDV vs. QLD - Dividend Comparison

EMDV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.41%, more than QLD's 0.12% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EMDV ProShares MSCI Emerging Markets Dividend Growers ETF	2.41%	2.46%	2.79%	1.88%	3.68%	2.12%	3.12%	2.38%	1.27%	2.09%	2.87%	0.00%
QLD ProShares Ultra QQQ	0.12%	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 EMDV and QLD in my portfolio?

EMDV and QLD have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EMDV or QLD?

QLD has higher volatility (8.90%) compared to EMDV (4.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMDV dropped -39.20% vs QLD's -83.13%.

Which ETF is better, EMDV or QLD?

On 10-year performance, QLD leads with 36.10% vs 2.64% for EMDV. On fees, EMDV is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, EMDV has been the lower-risk option at 4.17%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMDV or QLD?

Over the 10-year period, QLD has performed better with a 36.10% return vs 2.64%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMDV or QLD?

EMDV is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for QLD.

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

EMDV has the higher dividend yield at 2.41%, compared with 0.12% for QLD.

What is the main difference between EMDV and QLD?

EMDV is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while QLD is Leveraged Equities. EMDV tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Dividend Masters Index, while QLD tracks NASDAQ-100 Index (200%). Their fees differ too: 0.60% for EMDV and 0.95% for QLD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.70 vs 0.71), 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.