QCML vs. EINC

Last updated Jul 12, 2026

QCML (GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF) and EINC (VanEck Energy Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QCML is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Qualcomm Inc. (QCOM), while EINC is a Energy Equities fund tracking the MVIS North America Energy Infrastructure Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, QCML returned 5.77% vs 30.66% for EINC. At a 0.08 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. QCML charges 1.50%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for EINC.

Performance

QCML vs. EINC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF (QCML) and VanEck Energy Income ETF (EINC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QCML achieves a -3.62% return, which is significantly lower than EINC's 26.77% return.

QCML

• 1D: -2.33%
• 1M: -23.29%
• 6M: -10.47%
• YTD: -3.62%
• 1Y: 5.77%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EINC

• 1D: 0.19%
• 1M: 0.31%
• 6M: 28.45%
• YTD: 26.77%
• 1Y: 30.66%
• 3Y*: 28.13%
• 5Y*: 21.31%
• 10Y*: 11.56%

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

QCML vs. EINC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
QCML GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF	-3.62%	-16.71%
EINC VanEck Energy Income ETF	26.77%	3.74%

Correlation

The correlation between QCML and EINC is -0.06, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.06
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 13, 2025	0.08

The correlation between QCML and EINC shifts across timeframes, from -0.06 (1 year) to 0.08 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

QCML vs. EINC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QCML	EINC
Technology	66.6%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	99.4%
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	0.6%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	0.6%

Return for Risk

QCML vs. EINC — Risk / Return Rank

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

QCML

QCML Risk / Return Rank: 14
QCML Sharpe Ratio Rank: 10
QCML Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
QCML Omega Ratio Rank: 20
QCML Calmar Ratio Rank: 10
QCML Martin Ratio Rank: 10

EINC

EINC Risk / Return Rank: 78
EINC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
EINC Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
EINC Omega Ratio Rank: 77
EINC Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
EINC Martin Ratio Rank: 68

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.

QCML vs. EINC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF (QCML) and VanEck Energy Income ETF (EINC). 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.

	QCML	EINC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.04	2.05	-2.01
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.84	2.78	-1.94
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	1.36	-0.25
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.07	3.98	-3.91
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.13	9.80	-9.67

QCML vs. EINC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QCML Sharpe Ratio is 0.04, which is lower than the EINC Sharpe Ratio of 2.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QCML and EINC, 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

QCML vs. EINC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QCML drawdown since its inception was -59.13%, smaller than the maximum EINC drawdown of -87.55%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QCML and EINC.

Drawdown Indicators

	QCML	EINC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-59.13%	-87.55%	+28.42%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-58.72%	-7.89%	-50.83%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-16.01%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.87%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-68.85%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-47.72%	-3.89%	-43.83%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-29.60%	-44.02%	+14.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	30.51%	3.20%	+27.31%

Volatility

QCML vs. EINC - Volatility Comparison

GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF (QCML) has a higher volatility of 41.35% compared to VanEck Energy Income ETF (EINC) at 6.16%. This indicates that QCML's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EINC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QCML	EINC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	41.35%	6.16%	+35.19%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	91.73%	12.26%	+79.47%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	103.59%	15.33%	+88.26%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	100.33%	19.58%	+80.75%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	100.33%	25.33%	+75.00%

QCML vs. EINC - Expense Ratio Comparison

QCML has a 1.50% expense ratio, which is higher than EINC's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

QCML vs. EINC - Dividend Comparison

QCML has not paid dividends to shareholders, while EINC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.49%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EINC VanEck Energy Income ETF	3.49%	4.51%	3.33%	3.77%	2.89%	6.03%	6.69%	9.66%	11.31%	8.53%	9.71%	28.53%
QCML GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QCML and EINC in my portfolio?

QCML and EINC have a correlation of -0.06, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QCML or EINC?

QCML has higher volatility (41.35%) compared to EINC (6.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QCML dropped -59.13% vs EINC's -87.55%.

Which ETF is better, QCML or EINC?

On 1-year performance, EINC leads with 30.66% vs 5.77% for QCML. On fees, EINC is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, EINC has been the lower-risk option at 6.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QCML or EINC?

Over the 1-year period, EINC has performed better with a 30.66% return vs 5.77%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QCML or EINC?

EINC is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for QCML.

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

EINC has the higher dividend yield at 3.49%, compared with 0.00% for QCML.

What is the main difference between QCML and EINC?

QCML is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while EINC is Energy Equities. QCML tracks Qualcomm Inc. (QCOM), while EINC tracks MVIS North America Energy Infrastructure Index. They also come from different issuers: GraniteShares and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 1.50% for QCML and 0.45% for EINC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EINC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.05 vs 0.04), 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.