LCLG vs. QQQA

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

LCLG (Logan Capital Broad Innovative Growth ETF) and QQQA (ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dorsey Wright Momentum ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LCLG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Logan, while QQQA is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Dorsey Wright Momentum Index - Benchmark TR Gross. LCLG is actively managed, while QQQA is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, LCLG returned 27.94%/yr vs 33.54%/yr for QQQA. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. LCLG charges 0.99%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for QQQA.

Performance

LCLG vs. QQQA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Logan Capital Broad Innovative Growth ETF (LCLG) and ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dorsey Wright Momentum ETF (QQQA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LCLG achieves a 16.17% return, which is significantly lower than QQQA's 64.24% return.

LCLG

• 1D: -2.76%
• 1M: 4.15%
• YTD: 16.17%
• 6M: 14.09%
• 1Y: 36.27%
• 3Y*: 27.94%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QQQA

• 1D: -6.13%
• 1M: 11.00%
• YTD: 64.24%
• 6M: 61.01%
• 1Y: 85.96%
• 3Y*: 33.54%
• 5Y*: 14.28%
• 10Y*: —

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

LCLG vs. QQQA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
LCLG Logan Capital Broad Innovative Growth ETF	16.17%	18.15%	32.04%	35.45%	-8.62%
QQQA ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dorsey Wright Momentum ETF	64.24%	9.87%	16.17%	24.98%	-8.31%

Correlation

The correlation between LCLG and QQQA is 0.81, 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	0.81
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.84
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 8, 2022	0.84

The correlation between LCLG and QQQA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

LCLG vs. QQQA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LCLG	QQQA
Technology	38.0%	78.6%
Communication Services	18.8%	6.7%
Industrials	17.5%	-
Consumer Cyclical	15.3%	3.3%
Financial Services	5.8%	-
Healthcare	2.7%	5.4%
Consumer Defensive	1.1%	-
Basic Materials	0.9%	-
Energy	-	6.0%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

LCLG vs. QQQA — Risk / Return Rank

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

LCLG

LCLG Risk / Return Rank: 59
LCLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
LCLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
LCLG Omega Ratio Rank: 57
LCLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
LCLG Martin Ratio Rank: 64

QQQA

QQQA Risk / Return Rank: 87
QQQA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
QQQA Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
QQQA Omega Ratio Rank: 82
QQQA Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
QQQA Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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.

LCLG vs. QQQA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Logan Capital Broad Innovative Growth ETF (LCLG) and ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dorsey Wright Momentum ETF (QQQA). 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.

	LCLG	QQQA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.86	2.86	-1.00
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.49	3.31	-0.82
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.47	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.65	5.94	-3.29
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.56	21.29	-10.73

LCLG vs. QQQA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LCLG Sharpe Ratio is 1.86, which is lower than the QQQA Sharpe Ratio of 2.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LCLG and QQQA, 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

LCLG vs. QQQA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LCLG drawdown since its inception was -25.79%, smaller than the maximum QQQA drawdown of -38.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCLG and QQQA.

Drawdown Indicators

	LCLG	QQQA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-25.79%	-38.44%	+12.65%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.75%	-14.54%	+0.79%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.79%	-30.84%	+5.05%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-38.44%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.76%	-6.13%	+3.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.45%	-15.54%	+11.09%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.44%	4.05%	-0.61%

Volatility

LCLG vs. QQQA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Logan Capital Broad Innovative Growth ETF (LCLG) is 8.03%, while ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dorsey Wright Momentum ETF (QQQA) has a volatility of 17.13%. This indicates that LCLG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QQQA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LCLG	QQQA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.03%	17.13%	-9.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.94%	26.70%	-10.76%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.62%	30.23%	-10.61%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.75%	26.72%	-4.97%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.75%	26.55%	-4.80%

LCLG vs. QQQA - Expense Ratio Comparison

LCLG has a 0.99% expense ratio, which is higher than QQQA's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

LCLG vs. QQQA - Dividend Comparison

LCLG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QQQA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.06%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
LCLG Logan Capital Broad Innovative Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.06%	0.97%	2.03%	0.00%
QQQA ProShares Nasdaq-100 Dorsey Wright Momentum ETF	0.06%	0.10%	0.09%	0.34%	0.28%	0.10%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LCLG and QQQA in my portfolio?

LCLG and QQQA have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LCLG or QQQA?

QQQA has higher volatility (17.13%) compared to LCLG (8.03%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LCLG dropped -25.79% vs QQQA's -38.44%.

Which ETF is better, LCLG or QQQA?

On 3-year performance, QQQA leads with 33.54% vs 27.94% for LCLG. On fees, QQQA is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, LCLG has been the lower-risk option at 8.03%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LCLG or QQQA?

Over the 3-year period, QQQA has performed better with a 33.54% return vs 27.94%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LCLG or QQQA?

QQQA is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for LCLG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LCLG or QQQA?

QQQA has the higher dividend yield at 0.06%, compared with 0.00% for LCLG.

What is the main difference between LCLG and QQQA?

LCLG is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while QQQA is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Logan and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.99% for LCLG and 0.58% for QQQA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QQQA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.86 vs 1.86), 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.