QLD vs. RSBT

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

QLD (ProShares Ultra QQQ) and RSBT (Return Stacked Bonds & Managed Futures ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QLD is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index (200%), while RSBT is a Nontraditional Bonds fund actively managed by Return Stacked. QLD is passively managed, while RSBT is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, QLD returned 44.57%/yr vs 3.21%/yr for RSBT. At a 0.41 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. QLD charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.97%/yr for RSBT.

Performance

QLD vs. RSBT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) and Return Stacked Bonds & Managed Futures ETF (RSBT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QLD achieves a 32.65% return, which is significantly higher than RSBT's 6.42% return.

QLD

• 1D: 1.30%
• 1M: -0.55%
• YTD: 32.65%
• 6M: 32.82%
• 1Y: 73.89%
• 3Y*: 44.57%
• 5Y*: 23.24%
• 10Y*: 35.67%

RSBT

• 1D: 0.37%
• 1M: -3.00%
• YTD: 6.42%
• 6M: 8.27%
• 1Y: 23.51%
• 3Y*: 3.21%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QLD vs. RSBT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
QLD ProShares Ultra QQQ	32.65%	30.36%	42.82%	62.91%
RSBT Return Stacked Bonds & Managed Futures ETF	6.42%	10.31%	-2.90%	-11.85%

Correlation

The correlation between QLD and RSBT is 0.48, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.48
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.43
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 8, 2023	0.41

QLD vs. RSBT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QLD	RSBT
Technology	53.8%	-
Communication Services	15.8%	-
Consumer Cyclical	12.3%	-
Consumer Defensive	7.7%	-
Healthcare	4.2%	-
Industrials	2.8%	-
Utilities	1.4%	-
Basic Materials	1.1%	-
Energy	0.6%	-
Financial Services	0.2%	136.6%
Real Estate	0.1%	-

Return for Risk

QLD vs. RSBT — Risk / Return Rank

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

QLD

QLD Risk / Return Rank: 64
QLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
QLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
QLD Omega Ratio Rank: 64
QLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
QLD Martin Ratio Rank: 61

RSBT

RSBT Risk / Return Rank: 56
RSBT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
RSBT Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
RSBT Omega Ratio Rank: 52
RSBT Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
RSBT Martin Ratio Rank: 59

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. RSBT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) and Return Stacked Bonds & Managed Futures ETF (RSBT). 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	RSBT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.04	1.52	+0.52
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.48	1.97	+0.51
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.28	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.78	3.53	-0.75
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.46	9.11	+0.35

QLD vs. RSBT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QLD Sharpe Ratio is 2.04, which is higher than the RSBT Sharpe Ratio of 1.52. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QLD and RSBT, 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. RSBT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QLD drawdown since its inception was -83.13%, which is greater than RSBT's maximum drawdown of -23.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QLD and RSBT.

Drawdown Indicators

	QLD	RSBT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-83.13%	-23.60%	-59.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-25.13%	-6.33%	-18.80%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-42.29%	-18.98%	-23.31%
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	-7.11%	-3.83%	-3.28%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.16%	-12.55%	-5.61%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.36%	2.45%	+4.91%

Volatility

QLD vs. RSBT - Volatility Comparison

ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) has a higher volatility of 15.14% compared to Return Stacked Bonds & Managed Futures ETF (RSBT) at 5.71%. This indicates that QLD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RSBT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QLD	RSBT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	15.14%	5.71%	+9.43%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	27.51%	11.07%	+16.44%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	34.29%	14.74%	+19.55%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	45.07%	13.88%	+31.19%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	44.73%	13.88%	+30.85%

QLD vs. RSBT - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

QLD vs. RSBT - Dividend Comparison

QLD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.13%, less than RSBT's 3.01% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
RSBT Return Stacked Bonds & Managed Futures ETF	3.01%	3.20%	0.00%	2.38%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QLD and RSBT in my portfolio?

QLD and RSBT have a correlation of 0.48, 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 RSBT?

QLD has higher volatility (15.14%) compared to RSBT (5.71%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QLD dropped -83.13% vs RSBT's -23.60%.

Which ETF is better, QLD or RSBT?

On 3-year performance, QLD leads with 44.57% vs 3.21% for RSBT. On fees, QLD is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, RSBT has been the lower-risk option at 5.71%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QLD or RSBT?

Over the 3-year period, QLD has performed better with a 44.57% return vs 3.21%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QLD or RSBT?

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

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

RSBT has the higher dividend yield at 3.01%, compared with 0.13% for QLD.

What is the main difference between QLD and RSBT?

QLD is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while RSBT is Nontraditional Bonds. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Return Stacked. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for QLD and 0.97% for RSBT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.04 vs 1.52), 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.