PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
QULL vs. BDCX
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

QULL vs. BDCX - 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 Quarterly Pay 1.5X Leveraged MVIS BDC Index ETN (BDCX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QULL achieves a 14.81% return, which is significantly higher than BDCX's -12.50% return.


QULL

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

BDCX

1D
-4.22%
1M
-11.22%
YTD
-12.50%
6M
-14.12%
1Y
-17.95%
3Y*
3.33%
5Y*
1.39%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

QULL vs. BDCX - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
QULL
ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN
14.81%17.61%38.03%57.07%-42.00%51.36%
BDCX
ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5X Leveraged MVIS BDC Index ETN
-12.50%-10.42%15.32%35.33%-17.67%35.66%

Correlation

The correlation between QULL and BDCX is 0.44, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.44

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.46

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.54

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 8, 2021

0.54

The correlation between QULL and BDCX shifts across timeframes, from 0.44 (1 year) to 0.54 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

QULL vs. BDCX — Risk / Return Rank

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

QULL
QULL Risk / Return Rank: 4545
Overall Rank
QULL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4444
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QULL Sortino Ratio Rank: 4444
Sortino Ratio Rank
QULL Omega Ratio Rank: 4242
Omega Ratio Rank
QULL Calmar Ratio Rank: 4242
Calmar Ratio Rank
QULL Martin Ratio Rank: 5454
Martin Ratio Rank

BDCX
BDCX Risk / Return Rank: 44
Overall Rank
BDCX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BDCX Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
Sortino Ratio Rank
BDCX Omega Ratio Rank: 44
Omega Ratio Rank
BDCX Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
Calmar Ratio Rank
BDCX Martin Ratio Rank: 44
Martin Ratio Rank
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. BDCX - 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 Quarterly Pay 1.5X Leveraged MVIS BDC Index ETN (BDCX). 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.


QULLBDCXDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+2.23

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+3.04

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.27

0.91

+0.36

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.08

-0.59

+2.68

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.22

-1.05

+10.27

QULL vs. BDCX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QULL Sharpe Ratio is 1.57, which is higher than the BDCX Sharpe Ratio of -0.66. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QULL and BDCX, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


QULLBDCXDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.57

-0.66

+2.23

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.46

0.05

+0.40

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.55

0.43

+0.13

Drawdowns

QULL vs. BDCX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QULL drawdown since its inception was -51.83%, which is greater than BDCX's maximum drawdown of -34.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QULL and BDCX.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


QULLBDCXDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-51.83%

-34.96%

-16.87%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-18.43%

-30.46%

+12.03%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-36.82%

-33.39%

-3.43%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-51.83%

-34.96%

-16.87%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.38%

-28.88%

+28.50%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-14.06%

-10.07%

-3.99%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.15%

17.14%

-12.99%

Volatility

QULL vs. BDCX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN (QULL) is 4.68%, while ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5X Leveraged MVIS BDC Index ETN (BDCX) has a volatility of 7.50%. This indicates that QULL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BDCX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


QULLBDCXDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.68%

7.50%

-2.82%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

18.79%

22.42%

-3.63%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

24.46%

27.19%

-2.73%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

35.62%

26.51%

+9.11%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

35.15%

26.90%

+8.25%

QULL vs. BDCX - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both QULL and BDCX have an expense ratio of 0.95%.


Dividends

QULL vs. BDCX - Dividend Comparison

QULL has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BDCX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 20.45%.


PositionTTM202520242023202220212020
BDCX
ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5X Leveraged MVIS BDC Index ETN
20.45%19.17%15.28%14.71%17.47%11.52%6.32%
QULL
ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


QULL and BDCX have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

BDCX has higher volatility (7.50%) compared to QULL (4.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QULL dropped -51.83% vs BDCX's -34.96%.

On 5-year performance, QULL leads with 16.15% vs 1.39% for BDCX. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. 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.

Over the 5-year period, QULL has performed better with a 16.15% return vs 1.39%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

QULL and BDCX have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.

BDCX has the higher dividend yield at 20.45%, compared with 0.00% for QULL.

QULL tracks MSCI USA Sector Neutral Quality Index, while BDCX tracks MVIS US Business Development Companies (150%).

QULL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.57 vs -0.66), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for QULL and BDCX

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