FFLS vs. HDG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FFLS (The Future Fund Long/Short ETF) and HDG (ProShares Hedge Replication) are both Long-Short funds. FFLS is actively managed, while HDG is passively managed. Over the past year, FFLS returned -0.45% vs 13.22% for HDG. At a 0.48 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FFLS charges 1.75%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for HDG.

Performance

FFLS vs. HDG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in The Future Fund Long/Short ETF (FFLS) and ProShares Hedge Replication (HDG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FFLS achieves a -0.26% return, which is significantly lower than HDG's 6.40% return.

FFLS

• 1D: -0.63%
• 1M: 2.89%
• YTD: -0.26%
• 6M: -0.66%
• 1Y: -0.45%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

HDG

• 1D: -0.37%
• 1M: 2.07%
• YTD: 6.40%
• 6M: 7.00%
• 1Y: 13.22%
• 3Y*: 7.56%
• 5Y*: 3.02%
• 10Y*: 3.91%

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

FFLS vs. HDG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FFLS The Future Fund Long/Short ETF	-0.26%	7.49%	17.71%	2.03%
HDG ProShares Hedge Replication	6.40%	7.18%	5.12%	3.09%

Correlation

The correlation between FFLS and HDG is 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.40
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 22, 2023	0.48

FFLS vs. HDG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FFLS	HDG
Technology	14.4%	17.0%
Healthcare	10.1%	16.5%
Industrials	8.4%	17.7%
Communication Services	7.2%	2.4%
Consumer Cyclical	6.9%	8.4%
Energy	4.8%	6.1%
Real Estate	2.6%	6.1%
Consumer Defensive	1.6%	2.4%
Basic Materials	-	4.8%
Utilities	-	2.9%
Financial Services	-4.2%	15.8%

Return for Risk

FFLS vs. HDG — Risk / Return Rank

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

FFLS

FFLS Risk / Return Rank: 8
FFLS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
FFLS Sortino Ratio Rank: 8
FFLS Omega Ratio Rank: 7
FFLS Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
FFLS Martin Ratio Rank: 8

HDG

HDG Risk / Return Rank: 73
HDG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
HDG Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
HDG Omega Ratio Rank: 76
HDG Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
HDG Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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.

FFLS vs. HDG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for The Future Fund Long/Short ETF (FFLS) and ProShares Hedge Replication (HDG). 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.

	FFLS	HDG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.05	2.36	-2.41
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.01	3.50	-3.51
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.00	1.46	-0.46
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.04	3.35	-3.39
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.09	13.81	-13.90
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FFLS vs. HDG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FFLS Sharpe Ratio is -0.05, which is lower than the HDG Sharpe Ratio of 2.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FFLS and HDG, 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

	FFLS	HDG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.05	2.36	-2.41
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.42	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.55	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.80	0.43	+0.37

Drawdowns

FFLS vs. HDG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FFLS drawdown since its inception was -11.05%, smaller than the maximum HDG drawdown of -15.31%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FFLS and HDG.

Drawdown Indicators

	FFLS	HDG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.05%	-15.31%	+4.26%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.05%	-3.97%	-7.08%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-7.20%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-15.31%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-15.31%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.96%	-0.37%	-4.59%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.09%	-2.77%	-0.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.07%	0.96%	+4.11%

Volatility

FFLS vs. HDG - Volatility Comparison

The Future Fund Long/Short ETF (FFLS) has a higher volatility of 3.54% compared to ProShares Hedge Replication (HDG) at 2.06%. This indicates that FFLS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than HDG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FFLS	HDG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.54%	2.06%	+1.48%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.92%	4.58%	+2.34%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.94%	5.64%	+3.30%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.23%	7.15%	+4.08%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.23%	7.11%	+4.12%

FFLS vs. HDG - Expense Ratio Comparison

FFLS has a 1.75% expense ratio, which is higher than HDG's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

FFLS vs. HDG - Dividend Comparison

FFLS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.59%, more than HDG's 2.35% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FFLS The Future Fund Long/Short ETF	6.59%	6.58%	3.34%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
HDG ProShares Hedge Replication	2.35%	2.55%	3.50%	3.48%	0.39%	0.00%	0.08%	1.09%	0.51%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FFLS and HDG in my portfolio?

FFLS and HDG have a correlation of 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FFLS or HDG?

FFLS has higher volatility (3.54%) compared to HDG (2.06%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FFLS dropped -11.05% vs HDG's -15.31%.

Which ETF is better, FFLS or HDG?

On 1-year performance, HDG leads with 13.22% vs -0.45% for FFLS. On fees, HDG is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, HDG has been the lower-risk option at 2.06%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FFLS or HDG?

Over the 1-year period, HDG has performed better with a 13.22% return vs -0.45%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FFLS or HDG?

HDG is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.75% for FFLS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FFLS or HDG?

FFLS has the higher dividend yield at 6.59%, compared with 2.35% for HDG.

What is the main difference between FFLS and HDG?

They also come from different issuers: The Future Fund and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 1.75% for FFLS and 0.95% for HDG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

HDG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.36 vs -0.05), 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.