FLYD vs. EFZ

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

FLYD (MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs) and EFZ (ProShares Short MSCI EAFE) are both Inverse Equities funds - FLYD tracks the MerQube MicroSectors U.S. Travel Index while EFZ tracks the MSCI EAFE Index (-100%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FLYD returned -56.28%/yr vs -10.16%/yr for EFZ. A 0.61 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

FLYD vs. EFZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs (FLYD) and ProShares Short MSCI EAFE (EFZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLYD achieves a -30.35% return, which is significantly lower than EFZ's -7.36% return.

FLYD

• 1D: 3.79%
• 1M: -24.33%
• YTD: -30.35%
• 6M: -26.65%
• 1Y: -55.29%
• 3Y*: -56.28%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EFZ

• 1D: -0.76%
• 1M: 0.62%
• YTD: -7.36%
• 6M: -7.10%
• 1Y: -14.56%
• 3Y*: -10.16%
• 5Y*: -5.57%
• 10Y*: -9.04%

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

FLYD vs. EFZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
FLYD MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs	-30.35%	-60.42%	-54.13%	-75.14%	-46.63%
EFZ ProShares Short MSCI EAFE	-7.36%	-20.92%	2.90%	-10.38%	-5.80%

Correlation

The correlation between FLYD and EFZ is 0.56, 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	0.56
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.58
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 22, 2022	0.61

The correlation between FLYD and EFZ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.56 to 0.61 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FLYD vs. EFZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLYD

FLYD Risk / Return Rank: 2
FLYD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
FLYD Sortino Ratio Rank: 4
FLYD Omega Ratio Rank: 4
FLYD Calmar Ratio Rank: 0
FLYD Martin Ratio Rank: 0

EFZ

EFZ Risk / Return Rank: 3
EFZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3
EFZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 3
EFZ Omega Ratio Rank: 3
EFZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 2
EFZ Martin Ratio Rank: 2

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.

FLYD vs. EFZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs (FLYD) and ProShares Short MSCI EAFE (EFZ). 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.

	FLYD	EFZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.73	-0.87	+0.14
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.90	-1.18	+0.29
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.90	0.87	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-1.01	-0.85	-0.15
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-2.07	-1.43	-0.64

FLYD vs. EFZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLYD Sharpe Ratio is -0.73, which is comparable to the EFZ Sharpe Ratio of -0.87. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLYD and EFZ, 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

FLYD vs. EFZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLYD drawdown since its inception was -98.45%, which is greater than EFZ's maximum drawdown of -88.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLYD and EFZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLYD	EFZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-98.45%	-88.08%	-10.37%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-55.15%	-17.09%	-38.06%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-94.61%	-35.42%	-59.19%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-43.77%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-61.35%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-98.39%	-87.87%	-10.52%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-83.26%	-67.14%	-16.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	30.03%	10.17%	+19.86%

Volatility

FLYD vs. EFZ - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs (FLYD) has a higher volatility of 26.01% compared to ProShares Short MSCI EAFE (EFZ) at 5.34%. This indicates that FLYD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EFZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLYD	EFZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	26.01%	5.34%	+20.67%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	62.95%	14.13%	+48.82%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	75.71%	16.76%	+58.95%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	83.83%	16.83%	+67.00%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	83.83%	17.15%	+66.68%

FLYD vs. EFZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both FLYD and EFZ have an expense ratio of 0.95%.

Dividends

FLYD vs. EFZ - Dividend Comparison

FLYD has not paid dividends to shareholders, while EFZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.95%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
EFZ ProShares Short MSCI EAFE	3.95%	4.55%	5.29%	4.66%	0.57%	0.00%	0.04%	1.56%	0.34%
FLYD MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLYD and EFZ in my portfolio?

FLYD and EFZ have a correlation of 0.56, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLYD or EFZ?

FLYD has higher volatility (26.01%) compared to EFZ (5.34%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLYD dropped -98.45% vs EFZ's -88.08%.

Which ETF is better, FLYD or EFZ?

On 3-year performance, EFZ leads with -10.16% vs -56.28% for FLYD. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, EFZ has been the lower-risk option at 5.34%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLYD or EFZ?

Over the 3-year period, EFZ has performed better with a -10.16% return vs -56.28%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLYD or EFZ?

FLYD and EFZ have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FLYD or EFZ?

EFZ has the higher dividend yield at 3.95%, compared with 0.00% for FLYD.

What is the main difference between FLYD and EFZ?

FLYD tracks MerQube MicroSectors U.S. Travel Index, while EFZ tracks MSCI EAFE Index (-100%). They also come from different issuers: REX and ProShares.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLYD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.73 vs -0.87), 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.