PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
QLD vs. FNGO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

QLD vs. FNGO

Last updated Aug 2, 2026
Documentation

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 17.45%/yr vs 23.80%/yr for FNGO. Their correlation of 0.88 means they have usually moved in the same direction. 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.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QLD achieves a 18.94% return, which is significantly higher than FNGO's 12.30% return.

QLD

1D
1.20%
1M
-7.66%
6M
16.78%
YTD
18.94%
1Y
42.18%
3Y*
35.01%
5Y*
17.45%
10Y*
32.56%
ALL TIME*
24.68%

FNGO

1D
3.64%
1M
1.33%
6M
20.30%
YTD
12.30%
1Y
21.80%
3Y*
47.42%
5Y*
23.80%
10Y*
—
ALL TIME*
37.68%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

FNGO

MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN
$408.43K$444.96K$770.86K

QLD

ProShares Ultra QQQ
$408.78M$399.91M$439.78M

QLD vs. FNGO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
QLD
ProShares Ultra QQQ		18.94%30.36%42.82%117.72%-60.52%54.67%88.90%81.69%-26.74%
FNGO
MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN		12.30%25.49%101.65%240.10%-71.55%28.38%238.00%79.61%-39.85%

Correlation

The correlation between QLD and FNGO is 0.86, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.86

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.90

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.91

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 2, 2018

0.88

The correlation between QLD and FNGO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

QLD vs. FNGO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
QLD
FNGO

Technology

60.9%
59.6%

Communication Services

13.1%
30.0%

Consumer Cyclical

10.7%
10.4%

Consumer Defensive

6.3%

-

Healthcare

3.6%

-

Industrials

2.7%

-

Utilities

1.1%

-

Basic Materials

1.0%

-

Energy

0.5%

-

Financial Services

0.2%
10.0%

Real Estate

0.1%

-

Technology

QLD
60.9%
FNGO
59.6%

Communication Services

QLD
13.1%
FNGO
30.0%

Consumer Cyclical

QLD
10.7%
FNGO
10.4%

Consumer Defensive

QLD
6.3%
FNGO

-

Healthcare

QLD
3.6%
FNGO

-

Industrials

QLD
2.7%
FNGO

-

Utilities

QLD
1.1%
FNGO

-

Basic Materials

QLD
1.0%
FNGO

-

Energy

QLD
0.5%
FNGO

-

Financial Services

QLD
0.2%
FNGO
10.0%

Real Estate

QLD
0.1%
FNGO

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

ProShares Ultra QQQ

MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN

Often compared with QLD:
QLD vs. QQQQLD vs. TQQQQLD vs. SSOQLD vs. QQQMQLD vs. UPROQLD vs. VOOQLD vs. SPY
Often compared with FNGO:
FNGO vs. FNGUFNGO vs. FNGSFNGO vs. FNGGFNGO vs. MAGXFNGO vs. USDFNGO vs. TQQQFNGO vs. BULZ

Return for Risk

QLD vs. FNGO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
QLD
QLD Risk / Return Rank: 3939
Overall Rank
QLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3838
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 3939
Sortino Ratio Rank
QLD Omega Ratio Rank: 3838
Omega Ratio Rank
QLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 4141
Calmar Ratio Rank
QLD Martin Ratio Rank: 4141
Martin Ratio Rank
FNGO
FNGO Risk / Return Rank: 1919
Overall Rank
FNGO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1919
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FNGO Sortino Ratio Rank: 2222
Sortino Ratio Rank
FNGO Omega Ratio Rank: 2121
Omega Ratio Rank
FNGO Calmar Ratio Rank: 1717
Calmar Ratio Rank
FNGO Martin Ratio Rank: 1717
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

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.

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.

QLDFNGODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.95
0.36

+0.59

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.44
0.80

+0.64

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.18

1.09

+0.08

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.46

0.38

+1.08

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.32

0.92

+3.40

QLD vs. FNGO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QLD Sharpe Ratio is 0.95, which is higher than the FNGO Sharpe Ratio of 0.36. 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.

Loading charts...

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.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

QLDFNGODifference

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

-16.72%

-15.91%

-0.81%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-18.11%

-23.75%

+5.64%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

8.47%

17.55%

-9.08%

Volatility

QLD vs. FNGO - Volatility Comparison

ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) has a higher volatility of 13.69% compared to MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN (FNGO) at 12.24%. This indicates that QLD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FNGO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

QLDFNGODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

13.69%

12.24%

+1.45%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

31.99%

36.19%

-4.20%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

38.62%

44.77%

-6.15%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

45.76%

60.86%

-15.10%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

44.97%

61.47%

-16.50%

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 0.14%, while FNGO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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		0.14%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

QLD and FNGO have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

QLD has higher volatility (13.69%) compared to FNGO (12.24%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QLD dropped -83.13% vs FNGO's -78.39%.

On 5-year performance, FNGO leads with 23.80% vs 17.45% for QLD. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, FNGO has been the lower-risk option at 12.24%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, FNGO has performed better with a 23.80% return vs 17.45%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

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

QLD has the higher dividend yield at 0.14%, compared with 0.00% for FNGO.

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

QLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.95 vs 0.36), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for QLD and FNGO

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer