NVDS vs. FLYD

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

NVDS (Tradr 1.25X NVDA Bear Daily ETF) and FLYD (MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs) are both Inverse Equities funds - NVDS tracks the NVIDIA Corporation (-125%) while FLYD tracks the MerQube MicroSectors U.S. Travel Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, NVDS returned -65.20%/yr vs -55.74%/yr for FLYD. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. NVDS charges 1.15%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for FLYD.

Performance

NVDS vs. FLYD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Tradr 1.25X NVDA Bear Daily ETF (NVDS) and MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs (FLYD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NVDS achieves a -29.31% return, which is significantly lower than FLYD's -13.99% return.

NVDS

• 1D: 1.18%
• 1M: -17.63%
• YTD: -29.31%
• 6M: -32.74%
• 1Y: -58.02%
• 3Y*: -65.20%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FLYD

• 1D: 4.84%
• 1M: -15.33%
• YTD: -13.99%
• 6M: -24.93%
• 1Y: -50.66%
• 3Y*: -55.74%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NVDS vs. FLYD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
NVDS Tradr 1.25X NVDA Bear Daily ETF	-29.31%	-58.18%	-80.03%	-83.15%	-14.84%
FLYD MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs	-13.99%	-60.42%	-54.13%	-75.14%	-46.42%

Correlation

The correlation between NVDS and FLYD is 0.21, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.21
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.34
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 15, 2022	0.44

Over the past year, the correlation between NVDS and FLYD has dropped to 0.21 - well below their long-term average of 0.44, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

Return for Risk

NVDS vs. FLYD — Risk / Return Rank

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

NVDS

NVDS Risk / Return Rank: 1
NVDS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1
NVDS Sortino Ratio Rank: 1
NVDS Omega Ratio Rank: 1
NVDS Calmar Ratio Rank: 1
NVDS Martin Ratio Rank: 1

FLYD

FLYD Risk / Return Rank: 3
FLYD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3
FLYD Sortino Ratio Rank: 4
FLYD Omega Ratio Rank: 4
FLYD Calmar Ratio Rank: 1
FLYD Martin Ratio Rank: 2

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.

NVDS vs. FLYD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Tradr 1.25X NVDA Bear Daily ETF (NVDS) and MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs (FLYD). 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.

	NVDS	FLYD	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	-1.14	-0.68	-0.46
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	-1.91	-0.76	-1.14
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.79	0.91	-0.12
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.97	-0.92	-0.05
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	-1.53	-1.37	-0.16
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NVDS vs. FLYD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NVDS Sharpe Ratio is -1.14, which is lower than the FLYD Sharpe Ratio of -0.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NVDS and FLYD, 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

	NVDS	FLYD	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-1.14	-0.68	-0.46
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-1.03	-0.75	-0.28

Drawdowns

NVDS vs. FLYD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NVDS drawdown since its inception was -99.40%, roughly equal to the maximum FLYD drawdown of -98.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NVDS and FLYD.

Drawdown Indicators

	NVDS	FLYD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-99.40%	-98.11%	-1.29%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-59.88%	-54.89%	-4.99%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-96.32%	-93.41%	-2.91%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-99.35%	-98.02%	-1.33%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-83.38%	-83.11%	-0.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	38.60%	36.93%	+1.67%

Volatility

NVDS vs. FLYD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Tradr 1.25X NVDA Bear Daily ETF (NVDS) is 18.32%, while MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs (FLYD) has a volatility of 26.72%. This indicates that NVDS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLYD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NVDS	FLYD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	18.32%	26.72%	-8.40%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	38.28%	59.39%	-21.11%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	50.88%	74.39%	-23.51%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	68.85%	83.73%	-14.88%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	68.85%	83.73%	-14.88%

NVDS vs. FLYD - Expense Ratio Comparison

NVDS has a 1.15% expense ratio, which is higher than FLYD's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

NVDS vs. FLYD - Dividend Comparison

NVDS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 20.07%, while FLYD has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
FLYD MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
NVDS Tradr 1.25X NVDA Bear Daily ETF	20.07%	14.19%	14.11%	14.69%	5.72%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NVDS and FLYD in my portfolio?

NVDS and FLYD have a correlation of 0.21, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NVDS or FLYD?

FLYD has higher volatility (26.72%) compared to NVDS (18.32%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NVDS dropped -99.40% vs FLYD's -98.11%.

Which ETF is better, NVDS or FLYD?

On 3-year performance, FLYD leads with -55.74% vs -65.20% for NVDS. On fees, FLYD is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, NVDS has been the lower-risk option at 18.32%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NVDS or FLYD?

Over the 3-year period, FLYD has performed better with a -55.74% return vs -65.20%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NVDS or FLYD?

FLYD is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.15% for NVDS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NVDS or FLYD?

NVDS has the higher dividend yield at 20.07%, compared with 0.00% for FLYD.

What is the main difference between NVDS and FLYD?

NVDS tracks NVIDIA Corporation (-125%), while FLYD tracks MerQube MicroSectors U.S. Travel Index. They also come from different issuers: AXS and REX. Their fees differ too: 1.15% for NVDS and 0.95% for FLYD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLYD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.68 vs -1.14), 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.