QLD vs. LQD
QLD (ProShares Ultra QQQ) and LQD (iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QLD is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index (200%), while LQD is a Corporate Bonds fund tracking the iBoxx $ Liquid Investment Grade Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, QLD returned 35.29%/yr vs 2.41%/yr for LQD. At a 0.08 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. QLD charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for LQD.
Performance
QLD vs. LQD - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, QLD achieves a 31.05% return, which is significantly higher than LQD's -0.06% return. Over the past 10 years, QLD has outperformed LQD with an annualized return of 35.29%, while LQD has yielded a comparatively lower 2.41% annualized return.
QLD
- 1D
- 3.03%
- 1M
- 0.58%
- YTD
- 31.05%
- 6M
- 26.63%
- 1Y
- 69.67%
- 3Y*
- 46.32%
- 5Y*
- 23.57%
- 10Y*
- 35.29%
LQD
- 1D
- -0.10%
- 1M
- -0.67%
- YTD
- -0.06%
- 6M
- -0.06%
- 1Y
- 5.73%
- 3Y*
- 4.95%
- 5Y*
- -0.28%
- 10Y*
- 2.41%
QLD vs. LQD - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QLD ProShares Ultra QQQ | 31.05% | 30.36% | 42.82% | 117.72% | -60.52% | 54.67% | 88.90% | 81.69% | -8.31% | 70.34% |
LQD iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | -0.06% | 7.90% | 0.86% | 9.40% | -17.92% | -1.84% | 10.97% | 17.37% | -3.79% | 7.06% |
Correlation
The correlation between QLD and LQD is 0.34, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.34 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.27 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.30 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.24 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 21, 2006 | 0.08 |
Over the past year, QLD and LQD have become more correlated (0.34) than their long-term average of 0.08, meaning their price movements have been converging.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
QLD vs. LQD — Risk / Return Rank
QLD
LQD
QLD vs. LQD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) and iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD). 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 | LQD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.02 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.94 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.34 | 1.19 | +0.15 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.79 | 1.72 | +1.06 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.64 | 4.88 | +4.75 |
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 charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| QLD | LQD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.10 | 1.08 | +1.02 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.53 | -0.03 | +0.56 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.79 | 0.28 | +0.51 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.58 | 0.54 | +0.05 |
Drawdowns
QLD vs. LQD - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum QLD drawdown since its inception was -83.13%, which is greater than LQD's maximum drawdown of -24.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QLD and LQD.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| QLD | LQD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -83.13% | -24.95% | -58.18% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -25.13% | -3.34% | -21.79% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -42.29% | -8.43% | -33.86% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -63.68% | -24.95% | -38.73% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -63.68% | -24.95% | -38.73% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -8.24% | -4.21% | -4.03% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -18.16% | -3.99% | -14.17% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 7.25% | 1.18% | +6.07% |
Volatility
QLD vs. LQD - Volatility Comparison
ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) has a higher volatility of 13.78% compared to iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) at 1.62%. This indicates that QLD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LQD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| QLD | LQD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 13.78% | 1.62% | +12.16% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 26.34% | 3.94% | +22.40% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 33.42% | 5.32% | +28.10% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 44.95% | 8.65% | +36.30% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 44.68% | 8.68% | +36.00% |
QLD vs. LQD - Expense Ratio Comparison
QLD has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than LQD's 0.15% expense ratio.
Dividends
QLD vs. LQD - Dividend Comparison
QLD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.13%, less than LQD's 4.59% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LQD iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 4.59% | 4.48% | 4.45% | 3.99% | 3.30% | 2.30% | 2.66% | 3.29% | 3.67% | 3.10% | 3.34% | 3.47% |
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
QLD and LQD have a correlation of 0.34, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
QLD has higher volatility (13.78%) compared to LQD (1.62%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QLD dropped -83.13% vs LQD's -24.95%.
On 10-year performance, QLD leads with 35.29% vs 2.41% for LQD. On fees, LQD is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, LQD has been the lower-risk option at 1.62%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, QLD has performed better with a 35.29% return vs 2.41%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
LQD is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for QLD.
LQD has the higher dividend yield at 4.59%, compared with 0.13% for QLD.
QLD is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while LQD is Corporate Bonds. QLD tracks NASDAQ-100 Index (200%), while LQD tracks iBoxx $ Liquid Investment Grade Index. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for QLD and 0.15% for LQD.
QLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.10 vs 1.08), 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.
Find the right allocation for QLD and LQD
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