QLD vs. FNGO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

QLD (ProShares Ultra QQQ) and FNGO (MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN) are both Leveraged Equities funds - QLD tracks the NASDAQ-100 Index (200%) while FNGO tracks the NYSE FANG+ Index (+200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, QLD returned 25.75%/yr vs 30.44%/yr for FNGO. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

QLD vs. FNGO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) and MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN (FNGO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QLD achieves a 42.06% return, which is significantly higher than FNGO's 29.63% return.

QLD

• 1D: -0.53%
• 1M: 21.54%
• YTD: 42.06%
• 6M: 37.45%
• 1Y: 85.49%
• 3Y*: 50.15%
• 5Y*: 25.75%
• 10Y*: 36.10%

FNGO

• 1D: -2.35%
• 1M: 23.13%
• YTD: 29.63%
• 6M: 17.47%
• 1Y: 54.81%
• 3Y*: 62.64%
• 5Y*: 30.44%
• 10Y*: —

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

QLD vs. FNGO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
QLD ProShares Ultra QQQ	42.06%	30.36%	42.82%	117.72%	-60.52%	54.67%	88.90%	81.69%	-28.68%
FNGO MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN	29.63%	25.49%	101.65%	240.10%	-71.55%	28.38%	238.00%	79.61%	-40.52%

Correlation

The correlation between QLD and FNGO is 0.87, 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	0.87
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.91
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 3, 2018	0.88

The correlation between QLD and FNGO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

QLD vs. FNGO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QLD	FNGO
Technology	53.8%	59.9%
Communication Services	15.8%	28.8%
Consumer Cyclical	12.3%	11.3%
Consumer Defensive	7.7%	-
Healthcare	4.2%	-
Industrials	2.8%	-
Utilities	1.4%	-
Basic Materials	1.1%	-
Energy	0.6%	-
Financial Services	0.2%	10.0%
Real Estate	0.1%	-

Return for Risk

QLD vs. FNGO — Risk / Return Rank

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

QLD

QLD Risk / Return Rank: 69
QLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
QLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
QLD Omega Ratio Rank: 67
QLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
QLD Martin Ratio Rank: 64

FNGO

FNGO Risk / Return Rank: 32
FNGO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
FNGO Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
FNGO Omega Ratio Rank: 35
FNGO Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
FNGO Martin Ratio Rank: 25

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. FNGO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) and MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN (FNGO). 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.

	QLD	FNGO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.70	1.39	+1.31
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.16	1.94	+1.22
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.24	+0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.42	1.29	+2.13
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.92	3.39	+8.52
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QLD vs. FNGO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QLD Sharpe Ratio is 2.70, which is higher than the FNGO Sharpe Ratio of 1.39. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QLD and FNGO, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	QLD	FNGO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.70	1.39	+1.31
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.58	0.51	+0.07
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.81	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.60	0.67	-0.07

Drawdowns

QLD vs. FNGO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QLD drawdown since its inception was -83.13%, which is greater than FNGO's maximum drawdown of -78.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QLD and FNGO.

Drawdown Indicators

	QLD	FNGO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-83.13%	-78.39%	-4.74%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-25.13%	-42.73%	+17.60%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-42.29%	-47.64%	+5.35%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-63.68%	-78.39%	+14.71%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-63.68%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.53%	-2.94%	+2.41%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.17%	-23.91%	+5.74%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.20%	16.21%	-9.01%

Volatility

QLD vs. FNGO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) is 8.90%, while MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN (FNGO) has a volatility of 11.29%. This indicates that QLD experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FNGO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QLD	FNGO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.90%	11.29%	-2.39%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.08%	30.58%	-6.50%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	31.85%	39.56%	-7.71%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	44.74%	60.24%	-15.50%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	44.56%	61.54%	-16.98%

QLD vs. FNGO - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

QLD vs. FNGO - Dividend Comparison

QLD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.12%, while FNGO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FNGO MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QLD ProShares Ultra QQQ	0.12%	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 FNGO in my portfolio?

QLD and FNGO have a correlation of 0.87, 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 FNGO?

FNGO has higher volatility (11.29%) compared to QLD (8.90%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QLD dropped -83.13% vs FNGO's -78.39%.

Which ETF is better, QLD or FNGO?

On 5-year performance, FNGO leads with 30.44% vs 25.75% for QLD. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, QLD has been the lower-risk option at 8.90%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QLD or FNGO?

Over the 5-year period, FNGO has performed better with a 30.44% return vs 25.75%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QLD or FNGO?

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

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

QLD has the higher dividend yield at 0.12%, compared with 0.00% for FNGO.

What is the main difference between QLD and FNGO?

QLD tracks NASDAQ-100 Index (200%), while FNGO tracks NYSE FANG+ Index (+200%). They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Bank of Montreal.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.70 vs 1.39), 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.