QLD vs. EMC

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

QLD (ProShares Ultra QQQ) and EMC (Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QLD is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index (200%), while EMC is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund actively managed by Global X. QLD is passively managed, while EMC is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, QLD returned 44.57%/yr vs 15.25%/yr for EMC. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QLD charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for EMC.

Performance

QLD vs. EMC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) and Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF (EMC). 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 EMC's 22.09% return.

QLD

• 1D: 1.30%
• 1M: -0.55%
• YTD: 32.65%
• 6M: 32.82%
• 1Y: 73.89%
• 3Y*: 44.57%
• 5Y*: 23.24%
• 10Y*: 35.67%

EMC

• 1D: 0.43%
• 1M: 1.31%
• YTD: 22.09%
• 6M: 24.45%
• 1Y: 34.55%
• 3Y*: 15.25%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QLD vs. EMC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
QLD ProShares Ultra QQQ	32.65%	30.36%	42.82%	51.52%
EMC Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF	22.09%	18.91%	3.75%	1.62%

Correlation

The correlation between QLD and EMC is 0.78, 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	0.78
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.69
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 15, 2023	0.68

The correlation between QLD and EMC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.68 to 0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

QLD vs. EMC — 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

EMC

EMC Risk / Return Rank: 49
EMC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
EMC Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
EMC Omega Ratio Rank: 49
EMC Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
EMC 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.

QLD vs. EMC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) and Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF (EMC). 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	EMC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.04	1.46	+0.57
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.48	2.06	+0.43
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.28	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.78	2.32	+0.46
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.46	8.27	+1.19

QLD vs. EMC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QLD Sharpe Ratio is 2.04, which is higher than the EMC Sharpe Ratio of 1.46. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QLD and EMC, 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. EMC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QLD drawdown since its inception was -83.13%, which is greater than EMC's maximum drawdown of -18.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QLD and EMC.

Drawdown Indicators

	QLD	EMC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-83.13%	-18.38%	-64.75%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-25.13%	-13.89%	-11.24%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-42.29%	-18.38%	-23.91%
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%	-4.11%	-3.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.16%	-4.12%	-14.04%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.36%	3.89%	+3.47%

Volatility

QLD vs. EMC - Volatility Comparison

ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) has a higher volatility of 15.14% compared to Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF (EMC) at 10.45%. This indicates that QLD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EMC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QLD	EMC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	15.14%	10.45%	+4.69%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	27.51%	19.85%	+7.66%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	34.29%	22.04%	+12.25%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	45.07%	18.97%	+26.10%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	44.73%	18.97%	+25.76%

QLD vs. EMC - Expense Ratio Comparison

QLD has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than EMC's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

QLD vs. EMC - Dividend Comparison

QLD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.13%, less than EMC's 0.64% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EMC Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF	0.64%	0.78%	1.13%	0.89%	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 QLD and EMC in my portfolio?

QLD and EMC have a correlation of 0.78, 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 EMC?

QLD has higher volatility (15.14%) compared to EMC (10.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QLD dropped -83.13% vs EMC's -18.38%.

Which ETF is better, QLD or EMC?

On 3-year performance, QLD leads with 44.57% vs 15.25% for EMC. On fees, EMC is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, EMC has been the lower-risk option at 10.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QLD or EMC?

Over the 3-year period, QLD has performed better with a 44.57% return vs 15.25%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QLD or EMC?

EMC is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for QLD.

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

EMC has the higher dividend yield at 0.64%, compared with 0.13% for QLD.

What is the main difference between QLD and EMC?

QLD is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while EMC is Emerging Markets Diversified. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for QLD and 0.75% for EMC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.04 vs 1.46), 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.