QLD vs. FNGG

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

QLD (ProShares Ultra QQQ) and FNGG (Direxion Daily NYSE FANG+ Bull 2X Shares) are both Leveraged Equities funds - QLD tracks the NASDAQ-100 Index (200%) while FNGG tracks the NYSE FANG+ Index (2x Leveraged). Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, QLD returned 39.12%/yr vs 47.72%/yr for FNGG. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QLD charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.97%/yr for FNGG.

Performance

QLD vs. FNGG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) and Direxion Daily NYSE FANG+ Bull 2X Shares (FNGG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QLD achieves a 28.12% return, which is significantly higher than FNGG's 14.01% return.

QLD

• 1D: -3.81%
• 1M: -3.42%
• 6M: 23.12%
• YTD: 28.12%
• 1Y: 52.34%
• 3Y*: 39.12%
• 5Y*: 19.39%
• 10Y*: 34.28%

FNGG

• 1D: -1.75%
• 1M: 5.15%
• 6M: 14.11%
• YTD: 14.01%
• 1Y: 24.63%
• 3Y*: 47.72%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QLD vs. FNGG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
QLD ProShares Ultra QQQ	28.12%	30.36%	42.82%	117.72%	-60.52%	21.18%
FNGG Direxion Daily NYSE FANG+ Bull 2X Shares	14.01%	27.21%	98.76%	204.23%	-87.15%	-4.05%

Correlation

The correlation between QLD and FNGG is 0.85, 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	0.85
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 30, 2021	0.90

The correlation between QLD and FNGG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

QLD vs. FNGG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QLD	FNGG
Technology	58.7%	64.5%
Communication Services	14.3%	25.2%
Consumer Cyclical	11.4%	10.3%
Consumer Defensive	6.4%	-
Healthcare	3.7%	-
Industrials	2.6%	-
Utilities	1.2%	-
Basic Materials	1.0%	-
Energy	0.5%	-
Financial Services	0.2%	-
Real Estate	0.1%	-

Return for Risk

QLD vs. FNGG — Risk / Return Rank

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

QLD

QLD Risk / Return Rank: 50
QLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
QLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
QLD Omega Ratio Rank: 48
QLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
QLD Martin Ratio Rank: 51

FNGG

FNGG Risk / Return Rank: 20
FNGG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 20
FNGG Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
FNGG Omega Ratio Rank: 22
FNGG Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
FNGG Martin Ratio Rank: 18

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. FNGG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) and Direxion Daily NYSE FANG+ Bull 2X Shares (FNGG). 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	FNGG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.42	0.57	+0.85
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.90	1.04	+0.87
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.13	+0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.09	0.58	+1.52
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.85	1.44	+5.41

QLD vs. FNGG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QLD Sharpe Ratio is 1.42, which is higher than the FNGG Sharpe Ratio of 0.57. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QLD and FNGG, 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. FNGG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QLD drawdown since its inception was -83.13%, smaller than the maximum FNGG drawdown of -91.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QLD and FNGG.

Drawdown Indicators

	QLD	FNGG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-83.13%	-91.33%	+8.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-25.13%	-43.01%	+17.88%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-42.29%	-47.03%	+4.74%
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	-10.29%	-15.68%	+5.39%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.11%	-55.17%	+37.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.66%	17.12%	-9.46%

Volatility

QLD vs. FNGG - Volatility Comparison

ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) has a higher volatility of 17.17% compared to Direxion Daily NYSE FANG+ Bull 2X Shares (FNGG) at 15.56%. This indicates that QLD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FNGG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QLD	FNGG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	17.17%	15.56%	+1.61%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	30.63%	35.05%	-4.42%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	37.07%	43.33%	-6.26%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	45.56%	67.49%	-21.93%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	44.86%	67.49%	-22.63%

QLD vs. FNGG - Expense Ratio Comparison

QLD has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is lower than FNGG's 0.97% expense ratio.

Dividends

QLD vs. FNGG - Dividend Comparison

QLD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.13%, less than FNGG's 10.44% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FNGG Direxion Daily NYSE FANG+ Bull 2X Shares	10.44%	11.89%	0.79%	0.88%	0.00%	4.99%	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 FNGG in my portfolio?

QLD and FNGG have a correlation of 0.85, 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 FNGG?

QLD has higher volatility (17.17%) compared to FNGG (15.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QLD dropped -83.13% vs FNGG's -91.33%.

Which ETF is better, QLD or FNGG?

On 3-year performance, FNGG leads with 47.72% vs 39.12% for QLD. On fees, QLD is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, FNGG has been the lower-risk option at 15.56%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QLD or FNGG?

Over the 3-year period, FNGG has performed better with a 47.72% return vs 39.12%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QLD or FNGG?

QLD is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 0.97% for FNGG.

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

FNGG has the higher dividend yield at 10.44%, compared with 0.13% for QLD.

What is the main difference between QLD and FNGG?

QLD tracks NASDAQ-100 Index (200%), while FNGG tracks NYSE FANG+ Index (2x Leveraged). They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Direxion. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for QLD and 0.97% for FNGG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.42 vs 0.57), 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.