QLD vs. XPP

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

QLD (ProShares Ultra QQQ) and XPP (ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50) are both Leveraged Equities funds from ProShares - QLD tracks the NASDAQ-100 Index (200%) while XPP tracks the FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index (200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, QLD returned 35.67%/yr vs -5.00%/yr for XPP. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

QLD vs. XPP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) and ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP). 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 XPP's -19.06% return. Over the past 10 years, QLD has outperformed XPP with an annualized return of 35.67%, while XPP has yielded a comparatively lower -5.00% annualized return.

QLD

• 1D: 1.30%
• 1M: 0.90%
• YTD: 32.65%
• 6M: 32.82%
• 1Y: 69.43%
• 3Y*: 44.57%
• 5Y*: 23.24%
• 10Y*: 35.67%

XPP

• 1D: 2.14%
• 1M: -15.80%
• YTD: -19.06%
• 6M: -20.73%
• 1Y: -14.63%
• 3Y*: 4.75%
• 5Y*: -20.00%
• 10Y*: -5.00%

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

QLD vs. XPP - 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%
XPP ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50	-19.06%	45.84%	38.18%	-34.77%	-50.06%	-40.45%	7.07%	24.88%	-31.36%	80.21%

Correlation

The correlation between QLD and XPP is 0.46, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.46
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.37
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.40
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.49
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2009	0.54

The correlation between QLD and XPP shifts across timeframes, from 0.37 (3 years) to 0.54 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

QLD vs. XPP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QLD	XPP
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%	43.8%
Real Estate	0.1%	-

Return for Risk

QLD vs. XPP — 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

XPP

XPP Risk / Return Rank: 6
XPP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6
XPP Sortino Ratio Rank: 7
XPP Omega Ratio Rank: 7
XPP Calmar Ratio Rank: 6
XPP Martin Ratio Rank: 6

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. XPP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) and ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP). 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	XPP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.04	-0.37	+2.41
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.48	-0.29	+2.78
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	0.97	+0.37
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.78	-0.43	+3.21
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.46	-0.87	+10.33

QLD vs. XPP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QLD Sharpe Ratio is 2.04, which is higher than the XPP Sharpe Ratio of -0.37. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QLD and XPP, 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. XPP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QLD drawdown since its inception was -83.13%, smaller than the maximum XPP drawdown of -89.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QLD and XPP.

Drawdown Indicators

	QLD	XPP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-83.13%	-89.90%	+6.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-25.13%	-34.03%	+8.90%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-42.29%	-52.95%	+10.66%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-63.68%	-85.24%	+21.56%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-63.68%	-89.90%	+26.22%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.11%	-78.58%	+71.47%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.16%	-47.86%	+29.70%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.36%	16.88%	-9.52%

Volatility

QLD vs. XPP - Volatility Comparison

ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) has a higher volatility of 15.14% compared to ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50 (XPP) at 12.76%. This indicates that QLD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XPP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QLD	XPP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	15.14%	12.76%	+2.38%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	27.51%	28.73%	-1.22%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	34.29%	39.23%	-4.94%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	45.07%	62.75%	-17.68%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	44.73%	54.86%	-10.13%

QLD vs. XPP - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both QLD and XPP have an expense ratio of 0.95%.

Dividends

QLD vs. XPP - Dividend Comparison

QLD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.13%, less than XPP's 2.68% 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%
XPP ProShares Ultra FTSE China 50	2.68%	2.32%	2.96%	2.87%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	3.81%	1.47%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QLD and XPP in my portfolio?

QLD and XPP have a correlation of 0.46, 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 XPP?

QLD has higher volatility (15.14%) compared to XPP (12.76%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QLD dropped -83.13% vs XPP's -89.90%.

Which ETF is better, QLD or XPP?

On 10-year performance, QLD leads with 35.67% vs -5.00% for XPP. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, XPP has been the lower-risk option at 12.76%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QLD or XPP?

Over the 10-year period, QLD has performed better with a 35.67% return vs -5.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QLD or XPP?

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

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

XPP has the higher dividend yield at 2.68%, compared with 0.13% for QLD.

What is the main difference between QLD and XPP?

QLD tracks NASDAQ-100 Index (200%), while XPP tracks FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index (200%).

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.04 vs -0.37), 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.