LTL vs. FCOM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LTL (ProShares Ultra Telecommunications) and FCOM (Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LTL is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Dow Jones U.S. Select Telecommunications Index (200%), while FCOM is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the MSCI USA IMI Telecommunication Services 25/50 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, LTL returned 9.43%/yr vs 11.99%/yr for FCOM. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LTL charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for FCOM.

Performance

LTL vs. FCOM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Ultra Telecommunications (LTL) and Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF (FCOM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LTL achieves a -11.79% return, which is significantly lower than FCOM's -1.60% return. Over the past 10 years, LTL has underperformed FCOM with an annualized return of 9.43%, while FCOM has yielded a comparatively higher 11.99% annualized return.

LTL

• 1D: -2.50%
• 1M: -7.30%
• YTD: -11.79%
• 6M: -7.47%
• 1Y: 15.16%
• 3Y*: 36.33%
• 5Y*: 16.49%
• 10Y*: 9.43%

FCOM

• 1D: -0.87%
• 1M: -2.85%
• YTD: -1.60%
• 6M: 0.27%
• 1Y: 20.03%
• 3Y*: 23.77%
• 5Y*: 7.42%
• 10Y*: 11.99%

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

LTL vs. FCOM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
LTL ProShares Ultra Telecommunications	-11.79%	37.06%	65.15%	62.03%	-41.14%	40.42%	-3.25%	30.16%	-23.44%	-26.85%
FCOM Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF	-1.60%	26.06%	33.05%	44.65%	-38.97%	13.88%	28.33%	26.69%	-5.33%	8.20%

Correlation

The correlation between LTL and FCOM is 0.93, 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	0.93
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.95
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.87
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.73
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 25, 2013	0.67

Over the past year, LTL and FCOM have become more correlated (0.93) than their long-term average of 0.67, meaning their price movements have been converging.

LTL vs. FCOM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LTL	FCOM
Communication Services	57.7%	98.5%
Technology	2.7%	1.2%
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	0.3%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	0.1%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

LTL vs. FCOM — Risk / Return Rank

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

LTL

LTL Risk / Return Rank: 18
LTL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 18
LTL Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
LTL Omega Ratio Rank: 17
LTL Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
LTL Martin Ratio Rank: 19

FCOM

FCOM Risk / Return Rank: 34
FCOM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
FCOM Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
FCOM Omega Ratio Rank: 34
FCOM Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
FCOM Martin Ratio Rank: 36

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.

LTL vs. FCOM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra Telecommunications (LTL) and Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF (FCOM). 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.

	LTL	FCOM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.57	1.31	-0.74
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.98	1.97	-0.98
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	1.23	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.71	1.49	-0.78
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.10	5.67	-3.58
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LTL vs. FCOM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LTL Sharpe Ratio is 0.57, which is lower than the FCOM Sharpe Ratio of 1.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LTL and FCOM, 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

	LTL	FCOM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.57	1.31	-0.74
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.48	0.35	+0.13
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.26	0.57	-0.32
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.15	0.57	-0.42

Drawdowns

LTL vs. FCOM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LTL drawdown since its inception was -80.20%, which is greater than FCOM's maximum drawdown of -46.76%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LTL and FCOM.

Drawdown Indicators

	LTL	FCOM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-80.20%	-46.76%	-33.44%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-21.43%	-13.48%	-7.95%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-34.37%	-21.16%	-13.21%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-52.60%	-46.76%	-5.84%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-64.15%	-46.76%	-17.39%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-14.89%	-4.88%	-10.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-28.66%	-8.66%	-20.00%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.25%	3.54%	+3.71%

Volatility

LTL vs. FCOM - Volatility Comparison

ProShares Ultra Telecommunications (LTL) has a higher volatility of 7.57% compared to Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF (FCOM) at 4.24%. This indicates that LTL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FCOM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LTL	FCOM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.57%	4.24%	+3.33%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.39%	11.02%	+8.37%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.85%	15.38%	+11.47%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	34.56%	21.17%	+13.39%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	36.96%	20.96%	+16.00%

LTL vs. FCOM - Expense Ratio Comparison

LTL has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than FCOM's 0.08% expense ratio.

Dividends

LTL vs. FCOM - Dividend Comparison

LTL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.92%, less than FCOM's 0.94% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FCOM Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF	0.94%	0.88%	0.87%	0.77%	1.04%	0.90%	0.68%	0.86%	2.78%	11.70%	2.27%	2.92%
LTL ProShares Ultra Telecommunications	0.92%	0.64%	0.29%	0.97%	2.01%	1.14%	1.57%	0.83%	1.99%	1.96%	0.70%	1.55%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LTL and FCOM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, LTL and FCOM move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, LTL or FCOM?

LTL has higher volatility (7.57%) compared to FCOM (4.24%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LTL dropped -80.20% vs FCOM's -46.76%.

Which ETF is better, LTL or FCOM?

On 10-year performance, FCOM leads with 11.99% vs 9.43% for LTL. On fees, FCOM is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, FCOM has been the lower-risk option at 4.24%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LTL or FCOM?

Over the 10-year period, FCOM has performed better with a 11.99% return vs 9.43%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LTL or FCOM?

FCOM is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for LTL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LTL or FCOM?

FCOM has the higher dividend yield at 0.94%, compared with 0.92% for LTL.

What is the main difference between LTL and FCOM?

LTL is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while FCOM is Large Cap Growth Equities. LTL tracks Dow Jones U.S. Select Telecommunications Index (200%), while FCOM tracks MSCI USA IMI Telecommunication Services 25/50 Index. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for LTL and 0.08% for FCOM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FCOM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.31 vs 0.57), 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.