PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
QCMU vs. NUGT
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

QCMU vs. NUGT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Direxion Daily QCOM Bull 2X Shares (QCMU) and Direxion Daily Gold Miners Index Bull 2X ETF (NUGT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QCMU achieves a -4.41% return, which is significantly higher than NUGT's -36.39% return.


QCMU

1D
-1.89%
1M
-16.64%
6M
-11.11%
YTD
-4.41%
1Y
3.53%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

NUGT

1D
-0.78%
1M
-12.82%
6M
-45.09%
YTD
-36.39%
1Y
55.94%
3Y*
51.21%
5Y*
15.63%
10Y*
-14.50%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

QCMU vs. NUGT - Yearly Performance Comparison


Correlation

The correlation between QCMU and NUGT is 0.25, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.25

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 25, 2025

0.25

QCMU vs. NUGT - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
QCMU
NUGT

Technology

100.0%

-

Basic Materials

-

100.0%

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

-

Financial Services

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Industrials

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Technology

QCMU
100.0%
NUGT

-

Basic Materials

QCMU

-

NUGT
100.0%

Communication Services

QCMU

-

NUGT

-

Consumer Cyclical

QCMU

-

NUGT

-

Consumer Defensive

QCMU

-

NUGT

-

Energy

QCMU

-

NUGT

-

Financial Services

QCMU

-

NUGT

-

Healthcare

QCMU

-

NUGT

-

Industrials

QCMU

-

NUGT

-

Real Estate

QCMU

-

NUGT

-

Utilities

QCMU

-

NUGT

-

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

QCMU vs. NUGT — Risk / Return Rank

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

QCMU
QCMU Risk / Return Rank: 1313
Overall Rank
QCMU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1010
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QCMU Sortino Ratio Rank: 1818
Sortino Ratio Rank
QCMU Omega Ratio Rank: 1919
Omega Ratio Rank
QCMU Calmar Ratio Rank: 1010
Calmar Ratio Rank
QCMU Martin Ratio Rank: 1010
Martin Ratio Rank

NUGT
NUGT Risk / Return Rank: 2525
Overall Rank
NUGT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2222
Sharpe Ratio Rank
NUGT Sortino Ratio Rank: 2929
Sortino Ratio Rank
NUGT Omega Ratio Rank: 3131
Omega Ratio Rank
NUGT Calmar Ratio Rank: 2323
Calmar Ratio Rank
NUGT Martin Ratio Rank: 2121
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.

QCMU vs. NUGT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Direxion Daily QCOM Bull 2X Shares (QCMU) and Direxion Daily Gold Miners Index Bull 2X ETF (NUGT). 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.


QCMUNUGTDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.61

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.53

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.11

1.18

-0.07

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.03

0.92

-0.90

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.05

2.00

-1.95

QCMU vs. NUGT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QCMU Sharpe Ratio is 0.01, which is lower than the NUGT Sharpe Ratio of 0.63. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QCMU and NUGT, 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...

Drawdowns

QCMU vs. NUGT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QCMU drawdown since its inception was -59.48%, smaller than the maximum NUGT drawdown of -99.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QCMU and NUGT.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


QCMUNUGTDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-59.48%

-99.97%

+40.49%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-59.48%

-64.57%

+5.09%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-64.57%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-73.72%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-96.91%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-47.54%

-99.85%

+52.31%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-24.01%

-91.55%

+67.54%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

30.90%

29.75%

+1.15%

Volatility

QCMU vs. NUGT - Volatility Comparison

Direxion Daily QCOM Bull 2X Shares (QCMU) has a higher volatility of 41.46% compared to Direxion Daily Gold Miners Index Bull 2X ETF (NUGT) at 30.36%. This indicates that QCMU's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than NUGT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


QCMUNUGTDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

41.46%

30.36%

+11.10%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

92.10%

79.99%

+12.11%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

104.36%

94.83%

+9.53%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

102.58%

73.24%

+29.34%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

102.58%

87.76%

+14.82%

QCMU vs. NUGT - Expense Ratio Comparison

QCMU has a 1.07% expense ratio, which is lower than NUGT's 1.13% expense ratio.


Dividends

QCMU vs. NUGT - Dividend Comparison

QCMU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.61%, more than NUGT's 0.61% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018
NUGT
Direxion Daily Gold Miners Index Bull 2X ETF
0.61%0.22%1.79%1.67%0.70%0.00%0.00%0.63%0.57%
QCMU
Direxion Daily QCOM Bull 2X Shares
2.61%1.57%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


QCMU and NUGT have a correlation of 0.25, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

QCMU has higher volatility (41.46%) compared to NUGT (30.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QCMU dropped -59.48% vs NUGT's -99.97%.

On 1-year performance, NUGT leads with 55.94% vs 3.53% for QCMU. On fees, QCMU is cheaper at 1.07% per year. On volatility, NUGT has been the lower-risk option at 30.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, NUGT has performed better with a 55.94% return vs 3.53%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

QCMU is cheaper with a 1.07% expense ratio, compared with 1.13% for NUGT.

QCMU has the higher dividend yield at 2.61%, compared with 0.61% for NUGT.

QCMU is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while NUGT is Gold. Their fees differ too: 1.07% for QCMU and 1.13% for NUGT.

NUGT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.63 vs 0.01), 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 QCMU and NUGT

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