QULL vs. AMUB

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

QULL (ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN) and AMUB (ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B) are both exchange-traded funds - QULL is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the MSCI USA Sector Neutral Quality Index, while AMUB is a MLPs fund tracking the Alerian MLP Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, QULL returned 16.15%/yr vs 12.34%/yr for AMUB. At a 0.36 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. QULL charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.80%/yr for AMUB.

Performance

QULL vs. AMUB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN (QULL) and ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B (AMUB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QULL achieves a 14.81% return, which is significantly lower than AMUB's 16.97% return.

QULL

• 1D: -0.36%
• 1M: 8.71%
• YTD: 14.81%
• 6M: 14.51%
• 1Y: 38.22%
• 3Y*: 32.28%
• 5Y*: 16.15%
• 10Y*: —

AMUB

• 1D: -0.23%
• 1M: -2.08%
• YTD: 16.97%
• 6M: 15.25%
• 1Y: 15.77%
• 3Y*: 15.80%
• 5Y*: 12.34%
• 10Y*: 3.05%

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

QULL vs. AMUB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
QULL ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN	14.81%	17.61%	38.03%	57.07%	-42.00%	51.36%
AMUB ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B	16.97%	2.05%	15.68%	16.89%	21.91%	17.20%

Correlation

The correlation between QULL and AMUB is 0.07, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.07
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.26
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.36
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 8, 2021	0.36

Over the past year, the correlation between QULL and AMUB has dropped to 0.07 - well below their long-term average of 0.36, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

Return for Risk

QULL vs. AMUB — Risk / Return Rank

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

QULL

QULL Risk / Return Rank: 45
QULL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
QULL Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
QULL Omega Ratio Rank: 42
QULL Calmar Ratio Rank: 42
QULL Martin Ratio Rank: 54

AMUB

AMUB Risk / Return Rank: 31
AMUB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 32
AMUB Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
AMUB Omega Ratio Rank: 30
AMUB Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
AMUB Martin Ratio Rank: 31

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.

QULL vs. AMUB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN (QULL) and ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B (AMUB). 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.

	QULL	AMUB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.57	1.18	+0.39
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.20	1.69	+0.52
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.20	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.08	1.53	+0.55
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.22	4.52	+4.70
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QULL vs. AMUB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QULL Sharpe Ratio is 1.57, which is higher than the AMUB Sharpe Ratio of 1.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QULL and AMUB, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	QULL	AMUB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.57	1.18	+0.39
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.46	0.61	-0.16
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.11	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.55	0.00	+0.55

Drawdowns

QULL vs. AMUB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QULL drawdown since its inception was -51.83%, smaller than the maximum AMUB drawdown of -79.46%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QULL and AMUB.

Drawdown Indicators

	QULL	AMUB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-51.83%	-79.46%	+27.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.43%	-10.37%	-8.06%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-36.82%	-17.22%	-19.60%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-51.83%	-20.58%	-31.25%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-78.86%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.38%	-6.15%	+5.77%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-14.06%	-29.23%	+15.17%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.15%	3.51%	+0.64%

Volatility

QULL vs. AMUB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN (QULL) is 4.68%, while ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B (AMUB) has a volatility of 5.40%. This indicates that QULL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than AMUB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QULL	AMUB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.68%	5.40%	-0.72%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.79%	9.82%	+8.97%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.46%	13.60%	+10.86%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	35.62%	20.24%	+15.38%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	35.15%	27.09%	+8.06%

QULL vs. AMUB - Expense Ratio Comparison

QULL has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than AMUB's 0.80% expense ratio.

Dividends

QULL vs. AMUB - Dividend Comparison

Neither QULL nor AMUB has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QULL and AMUB in my portfolio?

QULL and AMUB have a correlation of 0.07, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QULL or AMUB?

AMUB has higher volatility (5.40%) compared to QULL (4.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QULL dropped -51.83% vs AMUB's -79.46%.

Which ETF is better, QULL or AMUB?

On 5-year performance, QULL leads with 16.15% vs 12.34% for AMUB. On fees, AMUB is cheaper at 0.80% per year. On volatility, QULL has been the lower-risk option at 4.68%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QULL or AMUB?

Over the 5-year period, QULL has performed better with a 16.15% return vs 12.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QULL or AMUB?

AMUB is cheaper with a 0.80% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for QULL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QULL or AMUB?

QULL and AMUB have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between QULL and AMUB?

QULL is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while AMUB is MLPs. QULL tracks MSCI USA Sector Neutral Quality Index, while AMUB tracks Alerian MLP Index. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for QULL and 0.80% for AMUB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QULL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.57 vs 1.18), 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.