QLD vs. FNGS
Compare and contrast key facts about ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) and MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS).
QLD and FNGS are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. QLD is a passively managed fund by ProShares that tracks the performance of the NASDAQ-100 Index (200%). It was launched on Jun 21, 2006. FNGS is a passively managed fund by BMO that tracks the performance of the NYSE FANG+ Index. It was launched on Nov 12, 2019. Both QLD and FNGS are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Performance
QLD vs. FNGS - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
QLD vs. FNGS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QLD ProShares Ultra QQQ | -11.23% | 30.36% | 42.82% | 117.72% | -60.52% | 54.67% | 88.90% | 11.44% |
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN | -10.61% | 18.64% | 51.99% | 95.24% | -40.32% | 16.96% | 101.99% | 10.91% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, QLD achieves a -11.23% return, which is significantly lower than FNGS's -10.61% return.
QLD
- 1D
- 2.44%
- 1M
- -8.26%
- YTD
- -11.23%
- 6M
- -9.73%
- 1Y
- 38.72%
- 3Y*
- 36.50%
- 5Y*
- 15.83%
- 10Y*
- 29.71%
FNGS
- 1D
- 2.05%
- 1M
- -3.29%
- YTD
- -10.61%
- 6M
- -12.74%
- 1Y
- 20.77%
- 3Y*
- 31.31%
- 5Y*
- 16.15%
- 10Y*
- —
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
QLD vs. FNGS - Expense Ratio Comparison
QLD has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than FNGS's 0.58% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
QLD vs. FNGS — Risk / Return Rank
QLD
FNGS
QLD vs. FNGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) and MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS). 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 | FNGS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 0.87 | 0.77 | +0.09 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 1.46 | 1.32 | +0.15 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.21 | 1.17 | +0.03 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.63 | 0.96 | +0.66 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.27 | 2.94 | +2.33 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| QLD | FNGS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.87 | 0.77 | +0.09 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.36 | 0.54 | -0.19 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.67 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.53 | 0.91 | -0.38 |
Correlation
The correlation between QLD and FNGS is 0.90, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Dividends
QLD vs. FNGS - Dividend Comparison
QLD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.19%, while FNGS has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QLD ProShares Ultra QQQ | 0.19% | 0.17% | 0.25% | 0.33% | 0.31% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.13% | 0.06% | 0.02% | 0.21% | 0.11% |
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ 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% |
Drawdowns
QLD vs. FNGS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum QLD drawdown since its inception was -83.13%, which is greater than FNGS's maximum drawdown of -48.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QLD and FNGS.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| QLD | FNGS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -83.13% | -48.98% | -34.15% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -25.13% | -22.93% | -2.20% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -63.68% | -48.98% | -14.70% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -63.68% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -18.15% | -17.66% | -0.49% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -18.30% | -11.02% | -7.28% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 7.75% | 7.52% | +0.23% |
Volatility
QLD vs. FNGS - Volatility Comparison
ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) has a higher volatility of 13.16% compared to MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) at 8.61%. This indicates that QLD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FNGS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| QLD | FNGS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 13.16% | 8.61% | +4.55% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 25.67% | 15.82% | +9.85% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 44.97% | 27.04% | +17.93% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 44.76% | 29.98% | +14.78% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 44.47% | 31.34% | +13.13% |