QLD vs. EZJ

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

QLD (ProShares Ultra QQQ) and EZJ (ProShares Ultra MSCI Japan) are both Leveraged Equities funds from ProShares - QLD tracks the NASDAQ-100 Index (200%) while EZJ tracks the MSCI Japan Index (200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, QLD returned 35.67%/yr vs 11.13%/yr for EZJ. A 0.56 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

QLD vs. EZJ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) and ProShares Ultra MSCI Japan (EZJ). 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 EZJ's 24.65% return. Over the past 10 years, QLD has outperformed EZJ with an annualized return of 35.67%, while EZJ has yielded a comparatively lower 11.13% annualized return.

QLD

• 1D: 1.30%
• 1M: 0.90%
• YTD: 32.65%
• 6M: 32.82%
• 1Y: 69.43%
• 3Y*: 44.57%
• 5Y*: 23.24%
• 10Y*: 35.67%

EZJ

• 1D: 1.04%
• 1M: -1.93%
• YTD: 24.65%
• 6M: 23.79%
• 1Y: 53.47%
• 3Y*: 22.06%
• 5Y*: 7.09%
• 10Y*: 11.13%

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

QLD vs. EZJ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
QLD ProShares Ultra QQQ	32.65%	30.36%	42.82%	117.72%	-60.52%	54.67%	88.90%	81.69%	-8.31%	70.34%
EZJ ProShares Ultra MSCI Japan	24.65%	42.72%	3.31%	30.78%	-38.23%	-1.96%	22.21%	33.76%	-30.99%	49.10%

Correlation

The correlation between QLD and EZJ is 0.60, 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	0.60
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.58
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.61
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 5, 2009	0.56

The correlation between QLD and EZJ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.55 to 0.61 - a consistent structural relationship.

QLD vs. EZJ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QLD	EZJ
Technology	53.8%	19.1%
Communication Services	15.8%	7.9%
Consumer Cyclical	12.3%	12.2%
Consumer Defensive	7.7%	3.6%
Healthcare	4.2%	6.2%
Industrials	2.8%	26.0%
Utilities	1.4%	1.1%
Basic Materials	1.1%	3.0%
Energy	0.6%	1.1%
Financial Services	0.2%	17.6%
Real Estate	0.1%	2.3%

Return for Risk

QLD vs. EZJ — 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

EZJ

EZJ Risk / Return Rank: 43
EZJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
EZJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
EZJ Omega Ratio Rank: 42
EZJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
EZJ Martin Ratio Rank: 42

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. EZJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) and ProShares Ultra MSCI Japan (EZJ). 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	EZJ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.04	1.31	+0.73
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.48	1.89	+0.59
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.24	+0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.78	2.01	+0.77
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.46	6.06	+3.40

QLD vs. EZJ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QLD Sharpe Ratio is 2.04, which is higher than the EZJ Sharpe Ratio of 1.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QLD and EZJ, 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. EZJ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QLD drawdown since its inception was -83.13%, which is greater than EZJ's maximum drawdown of -58.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QLD and EZJ.

Drawdown Indicators

	QLD	EZJ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-83.13%	-58.63%	-24.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-25.13%	-26.78%	+1.65%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-42.29%	-31.48%	-10.81%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-63.68%	-58.63%	-5.05%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-63.68%	-58.63%	-5.05%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.11%	-7.32%	+0.21%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.16%	-21.26%	+3.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.36%	8.86%	-1.50%

Volatility

QLD vs. EZJ - Volatility Comparison

ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) has a higher volatility of 15.14% compared to ProShares Ultra MSCI Japan (EZJ) at 12.82%. This indicates that QLD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EZJ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QLD	EZJ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	15.14%	12.82%	+2.32%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	27.51%	32.61%	-5.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	34.29%	41.13%	-6.84%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	45.07%	36.89%	+8.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	44.73%	34.65%	+10.08%

QLD vs. EZJ - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both QLD and EZJ have an expense ratio of 0.95%.

Dividends

QLD vs. EZJ - Dividend Comparison

QLD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.13%, less than EZJ's 1.66% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EZJ ProShares Ultra MSCI Japan	1.66%	1.13%	2.09%	1.11%	0.56%	0.00%	0.00%	0.24%	4.49%	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 EZJ in my portfolio?

QLD and EZJ have a correlation of 0.60, 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 EZJ?

QLD has higher volatility (15.14%) compared to EZJ (12.82%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QLD dropped -83.13% vs EZJ's -58.63%.

Which ETF is better, QLD or EZJ?

On 10-year performance, QLD leads with 35.67% vs 11.13% for EZJ. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, EZJ has been the lower-risk option at 12.82%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QLD or EZJ?

Over the 10-year period, QLD has performed better with a 35.67% return vs 11.13%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QLD or EZJ?

QLD and EZJ have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.

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

EZJ has the higher dividend yield at 1.66%, compared with 0.13% for QLD.

What is the main difference between QLD and EZJ?

QLD tracks NASDAQ-100 Index (200%), while EZJ tracks MSCI Japan Index (200%).

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.04 vs 1.31), 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.