EUM vs. QLD
EUM (ProShares Short MSCI Emerging Markets) and QLD (ProShares Ultra QQQ) are both exchange-traded funds - EUM is a Inverse Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Index (-100%), while QLD is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index (200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, EUM returned -10.61%/yr vs 36.90%/yr for QLD. At a correlation of -0.69, they often move in opposite directions. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.
Performance
EUM vs. QLD - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EUM achieves a -21.23% return, which is significantly lower than QLD's 30.45% return. Over the past 10 years, EUM has underperformed QLD with an annualized return of -10.61%, while QLD has yielded a comparatively higher 36.90% annualized return.
EUM
- 1D
- -1.02%
- 1M
- -0.61%
- YTD
- -21.23%
- 6M
- -21.58%
- 1Y
- -30.32%
- 3Y*
- -15.89%
- 5Y*
- -5.11%
- 10Y*
- -10.61%
QLD
- 1D
- 1.55%
- 1M
- -4.74%
- YTD
- 30.45%
- 6M
- 26.29%
- 1Y
- 62.19%
- 3Y*
- 45.24%
- 5Y*
- 21.62%
- 10Y*
- 36.90%
EUM vs. QLD - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EUM ProShares Short MSCI Emerging Markets | -21.23% | -22.61% | -0.83% | -3.89% | 21.11% | -1.32% | -24.37% | -15.27% | 14.60% | -28.08% |
QLD ProShares Ultra QQQ | 30.45% | 30.36% | 42.82% | 117.72% | -60.52% | 54.67% | 88.90% | 81.69% | -8.31% | 70.34% |
Correlation
The correlation between EUM and QLD is -0.76, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.76 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | -0.65 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.64 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | -0.66 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 1, 2007 | -0.69 |
The correlation between EUM and QLD shifts across timeframes, from -0.76 (1 year) to -0.64 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
EUM vs. QLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
EUM
QLD
Financial Services
Basic Materials
-
Communication Services
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Energy
-
Healthcare
-
Industrials
-
Real Estate
-
Technology
-
Utilities
-
Financial Services
EUM
QLD
Basic Materials
EUM
-
QLD
Communication Services
EUM
-
QLD
Consumer Cyclical
EUM
-
QLD
Consumer Defensive
EUM
-
QLD
Energy
EUM
-
QLD
Healthcare
EUM
-
QLD
Industrials
EUM
-
QLD
Real Estate
EUM
-
QLD
Technology
EUM
-
QLD
Utilities
EUM
-
QLD
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
EUM vs. QLD — Risk / Return Rank
EUM
QLD
EUM vs. QLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Short MSCI Emerging Markets (EUM) 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.
| EUM | QLD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -3.07 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -4.21 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.77 | 1.30 | -0.53 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.92 | 2.49 | -3.40 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.84 | 8.37 | -10.21 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
EUM vs. QLD - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EUM drawdown since its inception was -93.19%, which is greater than QLD's maximum drawdown of -83.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EUM and QLD.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EUM | QLD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -93.19% | -83.13% | -10.06% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -33.23% | -25.13% | -8.10% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -47.97% | -42.29% | -5.68% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -50.87% | -63.68% | +12.81% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -67.83% | -63.68% | -4.15% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -92.89% | -8.65% | -84.24% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -77.20% | -18.14% | -59.06% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 16.56% | 7.45% | +9.11% |
Volatility
EUM vs. QLD - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for ProShares Short MSCI Emerging Markets (EUM) is 11.91%, while ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) has a volatility of 17.91%. This indicates that EUM 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EUM | QLD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 11.91% | 17.91% | -6.00% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 21.01% | 28.90% | -7.89% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 23.14% | 35.65% | -12.51% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 19.78% | 45.34% | -25.56% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.71% | 44.78% | -24.07% |
EUM vs. QLD - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both EUM and QLD have an expense ratio of 0.95%.
Dividends
EUM vs. QLD - Dividend Comparison
EUM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.28%, more than QLD's 0.13% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EUM ProShares Short MSCI Emerging Markets | 4.28% | 3.98% | 4.22% | 3.86% | 0.82% | 0.00% | 0.15% | 1.35% | 0.88% | 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
EUM and QLD have a correlation of -0.76, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
QLD has higher volatility (17.91%) compared to EUM (11.91%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EUM dropped -93.19% vs QLD's -83.13%.
On 10-year performance, QLD leads with 36.90% vs -10.61% for EUM. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, EUM has been the lower-risk option at 11.91%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, QLD has performed better with a 36.90% return vs -10.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
EUM and QLD have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.
EUM has the higher dividend yield at 4.28%, compared with 0.13% for QLD.
EUM is categorized as Inverse Equities, while QLD is Leveraged Equities. EUM tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Index (-100%), while QLD tracks NASDAQ-100 Index (200%).
QLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.75 vs -1.31), 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.
Find the right allocation for EUM and QLD
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