QFLR vs. QLD

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

QFLR (Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF) and QLD (ProShares Ultra QQQ) are both exchange-traded funds - QFLR is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by Innovator, while QLD is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index (200%). QFLR is actively managed, while QLD is passively managed. Over the past year, QFLR returned 20.74% vs 66.80% for QLD. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QFLR charges 0.89%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for QLD.

Performance

QFLR vs. QLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR) and ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QFLR achieves a 3.27% return, which is significantly lower than QLD's 29.58% return.

QFLR

• 1D: -2.77%
• 1M: -2.26%
• YTD: 3.27%
• 6M: 2.61%
• 1Y: 20.74%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QLD

• 1D: -6.61%
• 1M: -2.02%
• YTD: 29.58%
• 6M: 26.13%
• 1Y: 66.80%
• 3Y*: 43.61%
• 5Y*: 21.41%
• 10Y*: 36.27%

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

QFLR vs. QLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QFLR Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF	3.27%	17.27%	16.30%
QLD ProShares Ultra QQQ	29.58%	30.36%	32.87%

Correlation

The correlation between QFLR and QLD is 0.91, 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	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 25, 2024	0.93

The correlation between QFLR and QLD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

QFLR vs. QLD — Risk / Return Rank

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

QFLR

QFLR Risk / Return Rank: 54
QFLR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 51
QFLR Sortino Ratio Rank: 46
QFLR Omega Ratio Rank: 53
QFLR Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
QFLR Martin Ratio Rank: 64

QLD

QLD Risk / Return Rank: 53
QLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
QLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
QLD Omega Ratio Rank: 51
QLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 56
QLD Martin Ratio Rank: 54

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.

QFLR vs. QLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR) and ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD). 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.

	QFLR	QLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.63	1.88	-0.25
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.18	2.33	-0.15
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.31	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.74	2.67	+0.06
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.85	9.05	+1.80

QFLR vs. QLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QFLR Sharpe Ratio is 1.63, which is comparable to the QLD Sharpe Ratio of 1.88. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QFLR and QLD, 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

QFLR vs. QLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QFLR drawdown since its inception was -13.97%, smaller than the maximum QLD drawdown of -83.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QFLR and QLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	QFLR	QLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.97%	-83.13%	+69.16%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.61%	-25.13%	+17.52%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-42.29%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-63.68%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-63.68%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.86%	-9.26%	+5.40%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.50%	-18.14%	+15.64%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.92%	7.40%	-5.48%

Volatility

QFLR vs. QLD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF (QFLR) is 6.59%, while ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) has a volatility of 18.22%. This indicates that QFLR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QLD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QFLR	QLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.59%	18.22%	-11.63%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.90%	28.95%	-19.05%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.77%	35.77%	-23.00%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.13%	45.34%	-32.21%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.13%	44.80%	-31.67%

QFLR vs. QLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

QFLR has a 0.89% expense ratio, which is lower than QLD's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

QFLR vs. QLD - Dividend Comparison

QFLR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QLD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.13%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
QFLR Innovator Nasdaq-100 Managed Floor ETF	0.00%	0.02%	0.03%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QLD ProShares Ultra QQQ	0.13%	0.17%	0.25%	0.33%	0.31%	0.00%	0.00%	0.13%	0.06%	0.02%	0.21%	0.11%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QFLR and QLD in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, QFLR and QLD 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, QFLR or QLD?

QLD has higher volatility (18.22%) compared to QFLR (6.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QFLR dropped -13.97% vs QLD's -83.13%.

Which ETF is better, QFLR or QLD?

On 1-year performance, QLD leads with 66.80% vs 20.74% for QFLR. On fees, QFLR is cheaper at 0.89% per year. On volatility, QFLR has been the lower-risk option at 6.59%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QFLR or QLD?

Over the 1-year period, QLD has performed better with a 66.80% return vs 20.74%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QFLR or QLD?

QFLR is cheaper with a 0.89% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for QLD.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QFLR or QLD?

QLD has the higher dividend yield at 0.13%, compared with 0.00% for QFLR.

What is the main difference between QFLR and QLD?

QFLR is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while QLD is Leveraged Equities. They also come from different issuers: Innovator and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.89% for QFLR and 0.95% for QLD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.88 vs 1.63), 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.