FNGS vs. QLD

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

FNGS (MicroSectors FANG+ ETN) and QLD (ProShares Ultra QQQ) are both exchange-traded funds - FNGS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the NYSE FANG+ Index, while QLD is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index (200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FNGS returned 18.98%/yr vs 23.39%/yr for QLD. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FNGS charges 0.58%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for QLD.

Performance

FNGS vs. QLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) 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, FNGS achieves a 8.21% return, which is significantly lower than QLD's 38.76% return.

FNGS

• 1D: -3.05%
• 1M: -1.23%
• YTD: 8.21%
• 6M: 7.55%
• 1Y: 20.76%
• 3Y*: 30.34%
• 5Y*: 18.98%
• 10Y*: —

QLD

• 1D: -0.23%
• 1M: 4.92%
• YTD: 38.76%
• 6M: 36.36%
• 1Y: 82.33%
• 3Y*: 46.92%
• 5Y*: 23.39%
• 10Y*: 37.21%

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

FNGS vs. QLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	8.21%	18.64%	51.99%	95.24%	-40.32%	16.96%	101.99%	10.10%
QLD ProShares Ultra QQQ	38.76%	30.36%	42.82%	117.72%	-60.52%	54.67%	88.90%	11.29%

Correlation

The correlation between FNGS and QLD is 0.87, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.87
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.90
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 13, 2019	0.90

The correlation between FNGS and QLD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

FNGS vs. QLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FNGS	QLD
Technology	63.4%	58.7%
Communication Services	26.0%	14.3%
Consumer Cyclical	10.6%	11.4%
Financial Services	10.0%	0.2%
Basic Materials	-	1.0%
Consumer Defensive	-	6.4%
Energy	-	0.5%
Healthcare	-	3.7%
Industrials	-	2.6%
Real Estate	-	0.1%
Utilities	-	1.2%

Return for Risk

FNGS vs. QLD — Risk / Return Rank

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

FNGS

FNGS Risk / Return Rank: 24
FNGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
FNGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
FNGS Omega Ratio Rank: 25
FNGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
FNGS Martin Ratio Rank: 21

QLD

QLD Risk / Return Rank: 67
QLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
QLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
QLD Omega Ratio Rank: 65
QLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
QLD Martin Ratio Rank: 63

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.

FNGS vs. QLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) 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.

	FNGS	QLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.93	2.36	-1.43
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.38	2.79	-1.41
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.17	1.37	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.91	3.29	-2.38
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.56	11.19	-8.63

FNGS vs. QLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNGS Sharpe Ratio is 0.93, which is lower than the QLD Sharpe Ratio of 2.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNGS 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.

Drawdowns

FNGS vs. QLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNGS drawdown since its inception was -48.98%, smaller than the maximum QLD drawdown of -83.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNGS and QLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	FNGS	QLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-48.98%	-83.13%	+34.15%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.93%	-25.13%	+2.20%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.77%	-42.29%	+15.52%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-48.98%	-63.68%	+14.70%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-63.68%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.42%	-2.83%	-5.59%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.84%	-18.14%	+7.30%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.11%	7.38%	+0.73%

Volatility

FNGS vs. QLD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) is 10.75%, while ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) has a volatility of 16.77%. This indicates that FNGS 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

	FNGS	QLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.75%	16.77%	-6.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.87%	28.19%	-10.32%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.54%	35.17%	-12.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	30.24%	45.24%	-15.00%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.23%	44.82%	-13.59%

FNGS vs. QLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

FNGS has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is lower than QLD's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

FNGS vs. QLD - Dividend Comparison

FNGS has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QLD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.12%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	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 FNGS and QLD in my portfolio?

FNGS and QLD have a correlation of 0.87, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FNGS or QLD?

QLD has higher volatility (16.77%) compared to FNGS (10.75%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FNGS dropped -48.98% vs QLD's -83.13%.

Which ETF is better, FNGS or QLD?

On 5-year performance, QLD leads with 23.39% vs 18.98% for FNGS. On fees, FNGS is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, FNGS has been the lower-risk option at 10.75%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FNGS or QLD?

Over the 5-year period, QLD has performed better with a 23.39% return vs 18.98%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FNGS or QLD?

FNGS is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for QLD.

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

QLD has the higher dividend yield at 0.12%, compared with 0.00% for FNGS.

What is the main difference between FNGS and QLD?

FNGS is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while QLD is Leveraged Equities. FNGS tracks NYSE FANG+ Index, while QLD tracks NASDAQ-100 Index (200%). They also come from different issuers: BMO and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for FNGS and 0.95% for QLD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.36 vs 0.93), 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.