NVD vs. QCML

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

NVD (GraniteShares 2x Short NVDA Daily ETF) and QCML (GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - NVD is a Inverse Equities fund actively managed by GraniteShares, while QCML is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Qualcomm Inc. (QCOM). NVD is actively managed, while QCML is passively managed. Over the past year, NVD returned -45.67% vs -27.37% for QCML. Their -0.35 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. Both charge a 1.50% expense ratio.

Performance

NVD vs. QCML - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares 2x Short NVDA Daily ETF (NVD) 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, NVD achieves a -30.21% return, which is significantly higher than QCML's -42.41% return.

NVD

• 1D: -5.85%
• 1M: -9.27%
• 6M: -25.85%
• YTD: -30.21%
• 1Y: -45.67%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -78.48%

QCML

• 1D: -5.62%
• 1M: -31.62%
• 6M: -25.47%
• YTD: -42.41%
• 1Y: -27.37%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -39.56%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
NVD GraniteShares 2x Short NVDA Daily ETF	$448.34M	$392.73M	$345.88M
QCML GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF	$8.37M	$13.54M	$57.95M

NVD vs. QCML - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
NVD GraniteShares 2x Short NVDA Daily ETF	-30.21%	-69.89%
QCML GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF	-42.41%	-16.71%

Correlation

The correlation between NVD and QCML is -0.23, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	-0.23
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 13, 2025	-0.35

The correlation between NVD and QCML shifts across timeframes, from -0.35 (all time) to -0.23 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

NVD vs. QCML - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NVD	QCML
Technology	200.0%	66.7%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

NVD vs. QCML — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

NVD

NVD Risk / Return Rank: 4
NVD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
NVD Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
NVD Omega Ratio Rank: 5
NVD Calmar Ratio Rank: 3
NVD Martin Ratio Rank: 2

QCML

QCML Risk / Return Rank: 9
QCML Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7
QCML Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
QCML Omega Ratio Rank: 14
QCML Calmar Ratio Rank: 6
QCML Martin Ratio Rank: 6

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

NVD vs. QCML - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares 2x Short NVDA Daily ETF (NVD) 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.

	NVD	QCML	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.59	-0.27	-0.32
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.56	0.30	-0.86
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.94	1.04	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.72	-0.41	-0.32
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.30	-0.83	-0.47

NVD vs. QCML - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NVD Sharpe Ratio is -0.59, which is lower than the QCML Sharpe Ratio of -0.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NVD 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

NVD vs. QCML - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NVD drawdown since its inception was -99.26%, which is greater than QCML's maximum drawdown of -68.76%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NVD and QCML.

Drawdown Indicators

	NVD	QCML	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-99.26%	-68.76%	-30.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-59.80%	-68.76%	+8.96%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-99.06%	-68.76%	-30.30%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-82.49%	-30.79%	-51.70%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	33.25%	33.51%	-0.26%

Volatility

NVD vs. QCML - Volatility Comparison

GraniteShares 2x Short NVDA Daily ETF (NVD) and GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF (QCML) have volatilities of 24.19% and 24.96%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NVD	QCML	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	24.19%	24.96%	-0.77%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	57.44%	92.90%	-35.46%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	73.16%	105.25%	-32.09%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	92.05%	99.78%	-7.73%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	92.05%	99.78%	-7.73%

NVD vs. QCML - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both NVD and QCML have an expense ratio of 1.50%.

Dividends

NVD vs. QCML - Dividend Comparison

NVD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 16.95%, while QCML has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
NVD GraniteShares 2x Short NVDA Daily ETF	16.95%	11.83%	8.68%	15.78%
QCML GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NVD and QCML in my portfolio?

NVD and QCML have a correlation of -0.23, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NVD or QCML?

QCML has higher volatility (24.96%) compared to NVD (24.19%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NVD dropped -99.26% vs QCML's -68.76%.

Which ETF is better, NVD or QCML?

On 1-year performance, QCML leads with -27.37% vs -45.67% for NVD. Both ETFs have the same 1.50% expense ratio. On volatility, NVD has been the lower-risk option at 24.19%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NVD or QCML?

Over the 1-year period, QCML has performed better with a -27.37% return vs -45.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NVD or QCML?

NVD and QCML have the same expense ratio: 1.50% per year.

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

NVD has the higher dividend yield at 16.95%, compared with 0.00% for QCML.

What is the main difference between NVD and QCML?

NVD is categorized as Inverse Equities, while QCML is Leveraged Equities.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QCML currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.27 vs -0.59), 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.