FLYD vs. MCDS

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

FLYD (MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs) and MCDS (JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Mid Core ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLYD is a Inverse Equities fund tracking the MerQube MicroSectors U.S. Travel Index, while MCDS is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by JPMorgan. FLYD is passively managed, while MCDS is actively managed. Over the past year, FLYD returned -47.47% vs 20.50% for MCDS. At a correlation of -0.76, they often move in opposite directions. FLYD charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for MCDS.

Performance

FLYD vs. MCDS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs (FLYD) and JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Mid Core ETF (MCDS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLYD achieves a -10.89% return, which is significantly lower than MCDS's 11.38% return.

FLYD

• 1D: 2.48%
• 1M: -1.03%
• YTD: -10.89%
• 6M: -18.12%
• 1Y: -47.47%
• 3Y*: -54.07%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

MCDS

• 1D: -1.76%
• 1M: 0.14%
• YTD: 11.38%
• 6M: 11.51%
• 1Y: 20.50%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FLYD vs. MCDS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FLYD MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs	-10.89%	-60.42%	-58.30%
MCDS JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Mid Core ETF	11.38%	6.51%	9.83%

Correlation

The correlation between FLYD and MCDS is -0.75, 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	-0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 9, 2024	-0.76

The correlation between FLYD and MCDS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from -0.76 to -0.75 - a consistent structural relationship.

FLYD vs. MCDS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLYD	MCDS
Consumer Cyclical	51.9%	11.1%
Industrials	22.8%	18.2%
Technology	16.1%	17.3%
Communication Services	9.0%	2.1%
Real Estate	0.1%	7.1%
Basic Materials	-	4.1%
Consumer Defensive	-	4.2%
Energy	-	7.2%
Financial Services	-	13.5%
Healthcare	-	8.9%
Utilities	-	6.5%

Return for Risk

FLYD vs. MCDS — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLYD

FLYD Risk / Return Rank: 4
FLYD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
FLYD Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
FLYD Omega Ratio Rank: 5
FLYD Calmar Ratio Rank: 1
FLYD Martin Ratio Rank: 3

MCDS

MCDS Risk / Return Rank: 53
MCDS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 49
MCDS Sortino Ratio Rank: 50
MCDS Omega Ratio Rank: 46
MCDS Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
MCDS Martin Ratio Rank: 61

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. MCDS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs (FLYD) and JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Mid Core ETF (MCDS). 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.

	FLYD	MCDS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.64	1.54	-2.18
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.65	2.27	-2.91
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.92	1.27	-0.35
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.87	2.76	-3.62
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.27	10.22	-11.49
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FLYD vs. MCDS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLYD Sharpe Ratio is -0.64, which is lower than the MCDS Sharpe Ratio of 1.54. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLYD and MCDS, 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

	FLYD	MCDS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.64	1.54	-2.18
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.74	0.93	-1.67

Drawdowns

FLYD vs. MCDS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLYD drawdown since its inception was -98.11%, which is greater than MCDS's maximum drawdown of -22.50%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLYD and MCDS.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLYD	MCDS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-98.11%	-22.50%	-75.61%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-54.89%	-7.47%	-47.42%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-93.41%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-97.94%	-1.76%	-96.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-83.15%	-3.98%	-79.17%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	37.34%	2.01%	+35.33%

Volatility

FLYD vs. MCDS - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs (FLYD) has a higher volatility of 20.72% compared to JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Mid Core ETF (MCDS) at 3.59%. This indicates that FLYD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MCDS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLYD	MCDS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	20.72%	3.59%	+17.13%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	59.35%	10.01%	+49.34%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	74.52%	13.34%	+61.18%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	83.64%	16.98%	+66.66%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	83.64%	16.98%	+66.66%

FLYD vs. MCDS - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLYD has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than MCDS's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLYD vs. MCDS - Dividend Comparison

FLYD has not paid dividends to shareholders, while MCDS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.08%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
FLYD MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
MCDS JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Mid Core ETF	1.08%	1.23%	0.64%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLYD and MCDS in my portfolio?

FLYD and MCDS have a correlation of -0.75, 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 MCDS?

FLYD has higher volatility (20.72%) compared to MCDS (3.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLYD dropped -98.11% vs MCDS's -22.50%.

Which ETF is better, FLYD or MCDS?

On 1-year performance, MCDS leads with 20.50% vs -47.47% for FLYD. On fees, MCDS is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, MCDS has been the lower-risk option at 3.59%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLYD or MCDS?

Over the 1-year period, MCDS has performed better with a 20.50% return vs -47.47%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLYD or MCDS?

MCDS is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for FLYD.

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

MCDS has the higher dividend yield at 1.08%, compared with 0.00% for FLYD.

What is the main difference between FLYD and MCDS?

FLYD is categorized as Inverse Equities, while MCDS is Mid Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: REX and JPMorgan. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for FLYD and 0.35% for MCDS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MCDS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.54 vs -0.64), 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.