IBIC vs. QCML

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

IBIC (iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF) and QCML (GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IBIC is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the ICE 2026 Maturity US Inflation-Linked Treasury Index, while QCML is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Qualcomm Inc. (QCOM). Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IBIC returned 4.40% vs 19.50% for QCML. At a correlation of -0.21, they often move in opposite directions. IBIC charges 0.10%/yr vs 1.50%/yr for QCML.

Performance

IBIC vs. QCML - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC) and GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF (QCML). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IBIC achieves a 2.33% return, which is significantly lower than QCML's 7.09% return.

IBIC

• 1D: -0.10%
• 1M: 0.02%
• YTD: 2.33%
• 6M: 2.35%
• 1Y: 4.40%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QCML

• 1D: -6.86%
• 1M: -36.17%
• YTD: 7.09%
• 6M: 2.38%
• 1Y: 19.50%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IBIC vs. QCML - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
IBIC iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF	2.33%	3.98%
QCML GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF	7.09%	-16.71%

Correlation

The correlation between IBIC and QCML is -0.13, 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	-0.13
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 13, 2025	-0.21

Return for Risk

IBIC vs. QCML — Risk / Return Rank

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

IBIC

IBIC Risk / Return Rank: 98
IBIC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
IBIC Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
IBIC Omega Ratio Rank: 98
IBIC Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
IBIC Martin Ratio Rank: 98

QCML

QCML Risk / Return Rank: 16
QCML Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
QCML Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
QCML Omega Ratio Rank: 22
QCML Calmar Ratio Rank: 13
QCML Martin Ratio Rank: 12

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.

IBIC vs. QCML - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC) and GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF (QCML). 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.

	IBIC	QCML	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	4.95	0.19	+4.76
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	8.87	1.04	+7.82
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	2.21	1.15	+1.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	16.49	0.33	+16.15
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	57.80	0.68	+57.12

IBIC vs. QCML - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBIC Sharpe Ratio is 4.95, which is higher than the QCML Sharpe Ratio of 0.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBIC and QCML, 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

IBIC vs. QCML - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBIC drawdown since its inception was -0.90%, smaller than the maximum QCML drawdown of -59.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBIC and QCML.

Drawdown Indicators

	IBIC	QCML	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-0.90%	-59.13%	+58.23%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.27%	-58.72%	+58.45%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.17%	-41.91%	+41.74%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.10%	-29.01%	+28.91%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.08%	28.89%	-28.81%

Volatility

IBIC vs. QCML - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC) is 0.19%, while GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF (QCML) has a volatility of 52.51%. This indicates that IBIC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QCML based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IBIC	QCML	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.19%	52.51%	-52.32%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.67%	88.84%	-88.17%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.90%	101.04%	-100.14%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	1.56%	99.82%	-98.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	1.56%	99.82%	-98.26%

IBIC vs. QCML - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBIC has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is lower than QCML's 1.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

IBIC vs. QCML - Dividend Comparison

IBIC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.59%, while QCML has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
IBIC iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF	3.59%	4.43%	4.65%	0.83%
QCML GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IBIC and QCML in my portfolio?

IBIC and QCML have a correlation of -0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IBIC or QCML?

QCML has higher volatility (52.51%) compared to IBIC (0.19%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBIC dropped -0.90% vs QCML's -59.13%.

Which ETF is better, IBIC or QCML?

On 1-year performance, QCML leads with 19.50% vs 4.40% for IBIC. On fees, IBIC is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, IBIC has been the lower-risk option at 0.19%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IBIC or QCML?

Over the 1-year period, QCML has performed better with a 19.50% return vs 4.40%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IBIC or QCML?

IBIC is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for QCML.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IBIC or QCML?

IBIC has the higher dividend yield at 3.59%, compared with 0.00% for QCML.

What is the main difference between IBIC and QCML?

IBIC is categorized as Inflation-Protected Bonds, while QCML is Leveraged Equities. IBIC tracks ICE 2026 Maturity US Inflation-Linked Treasury Index, while QCML tracks Qualcomm Inc. (QCOM). They also come from different issuers: iShares and GraniteShares. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for IBIC and 1.50% for QCML.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBIC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.95 vs 0.19), 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.