QLD vs. TNA

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

QLD (ProShares Ultra QQQ) and TNA (Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares) are both Leveraged Equities funds - QLD tracks the NASDAQ-100 Index (200%) while TNA tracks the Russell 2000 Index (300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, QLD returned 35.67%/yr vs 8.78%/yr for TNA. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QLD charges 0.95%/yr vs 1.14%/yr for TNA.

Performance

QLD vs. TNA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) and Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares (TNA). 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 lower than TNA's 53.14% return. Over the past 10 years, QLD has outperformed TNA with an annualized return of 35.67%, while TNA has yielded a comparatively lower 8.78% annualized return.

QLD

• 1D: 1.30%
• 1M: 2.58%
• YTD: 32.65%
• 6M: 32.82%
• 1Y: 73.89%
• 3Y*: 44.57%
• 5Y*: 23.24%
• 10Y*: 35.67%

TNA

• 1D: 2.53%
• 1M: 15.26%
• YTD: 53.14%
• 6M: 40.13%
• 1Y: 130.01%
• 3Y*: 25.74%
• 5Y*: -6.50%
• 10Y*: 8.78%

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

QLD vs. TNA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
QLD ProShares Ultra QQQ	32.65%	30.36%	42.82%	117.72%	-60.52%	54.67%	88.90%	81.69%	-8.31%	70.34%
TNA Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares	53.14%	9.82%	7.21%	26.24%	-62.48%	27.88%	-7.82%	71.88%	-39.89%	39.15%

Correlation

The correlation between QLD and TNA is 0.69, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.69
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.65
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.72
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.69
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 19, 2008	0.75

The correlation between QLD and TNA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.65 to 0.75 - a consistent structural relationship.

QLD vs. TNA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QLD	TNA
Technology	58.7%	19.1%
Communication Services	14.3%	2.4%
Consumer Cyclical	11.4%	8.0%
Consumer Defensive	6.4%	2.3%
Healthcare	3.7%	16.3%
Industrials	2.6%	18.0%
Utilities	1.2%	2.7%
Basic Materials	1.0%	4.7%
Energy	0.5%	5.4%
Financial Services	0.2%	15.3%
Real Estate	0.1%	5.9%

Return for Risk

QLD vs. TNA — 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

TNA

TNA Risk / Return Rank: 68
TNA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
TNA Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
TNA Omega Ratio Rank: 54
TNA Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
TNA Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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. TNA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) and Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares (TNA). 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	TNA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.04	2.01	+0.02
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.48	2.48	0.00
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.29	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.78	3.63	-0.85
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.46	11.92	-2.45

QLD vs. TNA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QLD Sharpe Ratio is 2.04, which is comparable to the TNA Sharpe Ratio of 2.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QLD and TNA, 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. TNA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QLD drawdown since its inception was -83.13%, smaller than the maximum TNA drawdown of -88.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QLD and TNA.

Drawdown Indicators

	QLD	TNA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-83.13%	-88.09%	+4.96%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-25.13%	-32.53%	+7.40%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-42.29%	-65.78%	+23.49%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-63.68%	-82.36%	+18.68%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-63.68%	-88.09%	+24.41%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.11%	-35.23%	+28.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.16%	-33.92%	+15.76%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.36%	9.91%	-2.55%

Volatility

QLD vs. TNA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) is 15.14%, while Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares (TNA) has a volatility of 21.54%. This indicates that QLD experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than TNA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QLD	TNA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	15.14%	21.54%	-6.40%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	27.51%	42.61%	-15.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	34.29%	58.70%	-24.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	45.07%	67.57%	-22.50%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	44.73%	68.54%	-23.81%

QLD vs. TNA - Expense Ratio Comparison

QLD has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is lower than TNA's 1.14% expense ratio.

Dividends

QLD vs. TNA - Dividend Comparison

QLD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.13%, less than TNA's 0.39% 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%
TNA Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares	0.39%	0.78%	0.93%	1.27%	0.31%	0.06%	0.03%	0.44%	0.36%	0.15%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QLD and TNA in my portfolio?

QLD and TNA have a correlation of 0.69, 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 TNA?

TNA has higher volatility (21.54%) compared to QLD (15.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QLD dropped -83.13% vs TNA's -88.09%.

Which ETF is better, QLD or TNA?

On 10-year performance, QLD leads with 35.67% vs 8.78% for TNA. On fees, QLD is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, QLD has been the lower-risk option at 15.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QLD or TNA?

Over the 10-year period, QLD has performed better with a 35.67% return vs 8.78%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QLD or TNA?

QLD is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.14% for TNA.

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

TNA has the higher dividend yield at 0.39%, compared with 0.13% for QLD.

What is the main difference between QLD and TNA?

QLD tracks NASDAQ-100 Index (200%), while TNA tracks Russell 2000 Index (300%). They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Direxion. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for QLD and 1.14% for TNA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.04 vs 2.01), 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.