QLD vs. DFIV

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

QLD (ProShares Ultra QQQ) and DFIV (Dimensional International Value ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QLD is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index (200%), while DFIV is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund actively managed by Dimensional. QLD is passively managed, while DFIV is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, QLD returned 44.57%/yr vs 23.38%/yr for DFIV. A 0.56 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QLD charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.27%/yr for DFIV.

Performance

QLD vs. DFIV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) and Dimensional International Value ETF (DFIV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QLD achieves a 32.65% return, which is significantly higher than DFIV's 12.20% return.

QLD

• 1D: 1.30%
• 1M: 2.58%
• YTD: 32.65%
• 6M: 32.82%
• 1Y: 73.89%
• 3Y*: 44.57%
• 5Y*: 23.24%
• 10Y*: 35.67%

DFIV

• 1D: 0.58%
• 1M: 1.88%
• YTD: 12.20%
• 6M: 13.92%
• 1Y: 34.38%
• 3Y*: 23.38%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QLD vs. DFIV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
QLD ProShares Ultra QQQ	32.65%	30.36%	42.82%	117.72%	-60.52%	10.36%
DFIV Dimensional International Value ETF	12.20%	45.36%	7.26%	17.75%	-3.70%	0.50%

Correlation

The correlation between QLD and DFIV is 0.54, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.54
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.50
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 13, 2021	0.56

The correlation between QLD and DFIV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.50 to 0.56 - a consistent structural relationship.

QLD vs. DFIV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QLD	DFIV
Technology	58.7%	3.2%
Communication Services	14.3%	4.3%
Consumer Cyclical	11.4%	10.0%
Consumer Defensive	6.4%	4.9%
Healthcare	3.7%	4.9%
Industrials	2.6%	9.8%
Utilities	1.2%	2.2%
Basic Materials	1.0%	11.4%
Energy	0.5%	15.3%
Financial Services	0.2%	32.4%
Real Estate	0.1%	1.7%

Return for Risk

QLD vs. DFIV — Risk / Return Rank

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

QLD

QLD Risk / Return Rank: 64
QLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
QLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
QLD Omega Ratio Rank: 64
QLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
QLD Martin Ratio Rank: 61

DFIV

DFIV Risk / Return Rank: 82
DFIV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
DFIV Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
DFIV Omega Ratio Rank: 83
DFIV Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
DFIV Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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.

QLD vs. DFIV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) and Dimensional International Value ETF (DFIV). 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.

	QLD	DFIV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.04	2.39	-0.35
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.48	3.26	-0.78
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.43	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.78	3.48	-0.70
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.46	13.34	-3.88

QLD vs. DFIV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QLD Sharpe Ratio is 2.04, which is comparable to the DFIV Sharpe Ratio of 2.39. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QLD and DFIV, 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

QLD vs. DFIV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QLD drawdown since its inception was -83.13%, which is greater than DFIV's maximum drawdown of -25.42%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QLD and DFIV.

Drawdown Indicators

	QLD	DFIV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-83.13%	-25.42%	-57.71%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-25.13%	-9.66%	-15.47%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-42.29%	-14.72%	-27.57%
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	-7.11%	-0.43%	-6.68%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.16%	-4.46%	-13.70%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.36%	2.52%	+4.84%

Volatility

QLD vs. DFIV - Volatility Comparison

ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) has a higher volatility of 15.14% compared to Dimensional International Value ETF (DFIV) at 4.50%. This indicates that QLD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DFIV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QLD	DFIV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	15.14%	4.50%	+10.64%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	27.51%	11.46%	+16.05%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	34.29%	14.10%	+20.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	45.07%	16.66%	+28.41%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	44.73%	16.66%	+28.07%

QLD vs. DFIV - Expense Ratio Comparison

QLD has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than DFIV's 0.27% expense ratio.

Dividends

QLD vs. DFIV - Dividend Comparison

QLD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.13%, less than DFIV's 2.54% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
DFIV Dimensional International Value ETF	2.54%	2.92%	3.88%	3.93%	3.84%	2.30%	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 QLD and DFIV in my portfolio?

QLD and DFIV have a correlation of 0.54, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QLD or DFIV?

QLD has higher volatility (15.14%) compared to DFIV (4.50%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QLD dropped -83.13% vs DFIV's -25.42%.

Which ETF is better, QLD or DFIV?

On 3-year performance, QLD leads with 44.57% vs 23.38% for DFIV. On fees, DFIV is cheaper at 0.27% per year. On volatility, DFIV has been the lower-risk option at 4.50%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QLD or DFIV?

Over the 3-year period, QLD has performed better with a 44.57% return vs 23.38%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QLD or DFIV?

DFIV is cheaper with a 0.27% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for QLD.

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

DFIV has the higher dividend yield at 2.54%, compared with 0.13% for QLD.

What is the main difference between QLD and DFIV?

QLD is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while DFIV is Foreign Large Cap Equities. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Dimensional. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for QLD and 0.27% for DFIV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DFIV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.39 vs 2.04), 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.