PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
LEAD vs. OUSA
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

LEAD vs. OUSA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Siren DIVCON Leaders Dividend ETF (LEAD) and OShares U.S. Quality Dividend ETF (OUSA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LEAD achieves a 15.75% return, which is significantly higher than OUSA's 1.05% return. Over the past 10 years, LEAD has outperformed OUSA with an annualized return of 14.71%, while OUSA has yielded a comparatively lower 10.22% annualized return.


LEAD

1D
0.48%
1M
4.84%
YTD
15.75%
6M
14.25%
1Y
25.56%
3Y*
19.23%
5Y*
12.16%
10Y*
14.71%

OUSA

1D
-0.75%
1M
1.02%
YTD
1.05%
6M
1.29%
1Y
9.81%
3Y*
12.63%
5Y*
8.62%
10Y*
10.22%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

LEAD vs. OUSA - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
LEAD
Siren DIVCON Leaders Dividend ETF
15.75%15.52%10.32%26.25%-18.16%29.69%23.41%33.75%-6.63%24.89%
OUSA
OShares U.S. Quality Dividend ETF
1.05%10.23%17.09%13.44%-9.33%23.75%6.96%25.03%-3.11%18.81%

Correlation

The correlation between LEAD and OUSA is 0.61, 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

0.61

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.78

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.83

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.81

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 7, 2016

0.79

The correlation between LEAD and OUSA shifts across timeframes, from 0.61 (1 year) to 0.83 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

LEAD vs. OUSA - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
LEAD
OUSA

Technology

36.5%
23.4%

Industrials

31.1%
11.6%

Financial Services

16.2%
18.5%

Healthcare

5.7%
14.1%

Consumer Defensive

3.8%
7.6%

Consumer Cyclical

1.3%
13.4%

Energy

1.3%

-

Communication Services

0.1%
11.4%

Basic Materials

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Technology

LEAD
36.5%
OUSA
23.4%

Industrials

LEAD
31.1%
OUSA
11.6%

Financial Services

LEAD
16.2%
OUSA
18.5%

Healthcare

LEAD
5.7%
OUSA
14.1%

Consumer Defensive

LEAD
3.8%
OUSA
7.6%

Consumer Cyclical

LEAD
1.3%
OUSA
13.4%

Energy

LEAD
1.3%
OUSA

-

Communication Services

LEAD
0.1%
OUSA
11.4%

Basic Materials

LEAD

-

OUSA

-

Real Estate

LEAD

-

OUSA

-

Utilities

LEAD

-

OUSA

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

LEAD vs. OUSA — Risk / Return Rank

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

LEAD
LEAD Risk / Return Rank: 5656
Overall Rank
LEAD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5151
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LEAD Sortino Ratio Rank: 5151
Sortino Ratio Rank
LEAD Omega Ratio Rank: 4949
Omega Ratio Rank
LEAD Calmar Ratio Rank: 6060
Calmar Ratio Rank
LEAD Martin Ratio Rank: 6969
Martin Ratio Rank

OUSA
OUSA Risk / Return Rank: 2727
Overall Rank
OUSA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2828
Sharpe Ratio Rank
OUSA Sortino Ratio Rank: 2828
Sortino Ratio Rank
OUSA Omega Ratio Rank: 2626
Omega Ratio Rank
OUSA Calmar Ratio Rank: 2525
Calmar Ratio Rank
OUSA Martin Ratio Rank: 2929
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

LEAD vs. OUSA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Siren DIVCON Leaders Dividend ETF (LEAD) and OShares U.S. Quality Dividend ETF (OUSA). 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.


LEADOUSADifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.76

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.93

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.31

1.18

+0.13

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.97

1.18

+1.79

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.66

4.19

+8.47

LEAD vs. OUSA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LEAD Sharpe Ratio is 1.77, which is higher than the OUSA Sharpe Ratio of 1.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LEAD and OUSA, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


LEADOUSADifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.77

1.01

+0.76

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.71

0.65

+0.05

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.79

0.68

+0.12

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.80

0.68

+0.12

Drawdowns

LEAD vs. OUSA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LEAD drawdown since its inception was -32.19%, roughly equal to the maximum OUSA drawdown of -33.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LEAD and OUSA.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


LEADOUSADifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-32.19%

-33.12%

+0.93%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.65%

-8.36%

-0.29%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.86%

-13.14%

-4.72%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-24.93%

-19.54%

-5.39%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-32.19%

-33.12%

+0.93%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-2.58%

+2.58%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.42%

-3.53%

-0.89%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.02%

2.35%

-0.33%

Volatility

LEAD vs. OUSA - Volatility Comparison

Siren DIVCON Leaders Dividend ETF (LEAD) has a higher volatility of 4.12% compared to OShares U.S. Quality Dividend ETF (OUSA) at 2.25%. This indicates that LEAD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than OUSA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


LEADOUSADifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.12%

2.25%

+1.87%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.33%

7.18%

+4.15%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.56%

9.75%

+4.81%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.34%

13.30%

+4.04%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.65%

15.16%

+3.49%

LEAD vs. OUSA - Expense Ratio Comparison

LEAD has a 0.43% expense ratio, which is lower than OUSA's 0.48% expense ratio.


Dividends

LEAD vs. OUSA - Dividend Comparison

LEAD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.58%, less than OUSA's 1.42% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
LEAD
Siren DIVCON Leaders Dividend ETF
0.58%0.70%0.93%1.13%1.27%1.79%0.81%1.32%1.38%0.97%1.38%0.00%
OUSA
OShares U.S. Quality Dividend ETF
1.42%1.39%1.50%1.81%1.92%1.56%2.03%2.31%3.06%2.15%2.32%1.17%

Frequently Asked Questions


LEAD and OUSA have a correlation of 0.61, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

LEAD has higher volatility (4.12%) compared to OUSA (2.25%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LEAD dropped -32.19% vs OUSA's -33.12%.

On 10-year performance, LEAD leads with 14.71% vs 10.22% for OUSA. On fees, LEAD is cheaper at 0.43% per year. On volatility, OUSA has been the lower-risk option at 2.25%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, LEAD has performed better with a 14.71% return vs 10.22%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

LEAD is cheaper with a 0.43% expense ratio, compared with 0.48% for OUSA.

OUSA has the higher dividend yield at 1.42%, compared with 0.58% for LEAD.

LEAD tracks Siren DIVCON Leaders Dividend Index, while OUSA tracks O'Shares US Quality Dividend Index. They also come from different issuers: SRN Advisors and O'Shares Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.43% for LEAD and 0.48% for OUSA.

LEAD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.77 vs 1.01), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for LEAD and OUSA

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer