QULL vs. DUHP

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

QULL (ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN) and DUHP (DFA Dimensional US High Profitability ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QULL is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the MSCI USA Sector Neutral Quality Index, while DUHP is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Dimensional. QULL is passively managed, while DUHP is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, QULL returned 32.44%/yr vs 19.38%/yr for DUHP. With a 0.95 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. QULL charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.21%/yr for DUHP.

Performance

QULL vs. DUHP - 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 DFA Dimensional US High Profitability ETF (DUHP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QULL achieves a 15.23% return, which is significantly higher than DUHP's 9.51% return.

QULL

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: 7.79%
• YTD: 15.23%
• 6M: 15.73%
• 1Y: 40.54%
• 3Y*: 32.44%
• 5Y*: 16.69%
• 10Y*: —

DUHP

• 1D: 0.27%
• 1M: 6.05%
• YTD: 9.51%
• 6M: 9.93%
• 1Y: 21.98%
• 3Y*: 19.38%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QULL vs. DUHP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
QULL ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN	15.23%	17.61%	38.03%	57.07%	-22.86%
DUHP DFA Dimensional US High Profitability ETF	9.51%	13.77%	19.49%	21.11%	-2.56%

Correlation

The correlation between QULL and DUHP is 0.93, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.93
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 25, 2022	0.95

The correlation between QULL and DUHP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

QULL vs. DUHP — Risk / Return Rank

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

QULL

QULL Risk / Return Rank: 47
QULL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
QULL Sortino Ratio Rank: 46
QULL Omega Ratio Rank: 44
QULL Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
QULL Martin Ratio Rank: 56

DUHP

DUHP Risk / Return Rank: 57
DUHP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
DUHP Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
DUHP Omega Ratio Rank: 56
DUHP Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
DUHP Martin Ratio Rank: 61

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. DUHP - 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 DFA Dimensional US High Profitability ETF (DUHP). 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	DUHP	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.67	1.97	-0.30
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.31	2.81	-0.50
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.35	-0.07
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.23	2.50	-0.26
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	9.90	10.94	-1.04
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. DUHP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QULL Sharpe Ratio is 1.67, which is comparable to the DUHP Sharpe Ratio of 1.97. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QULL and DUHP, 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	DUHP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.67	1.97	-0.30
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.47	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.56	0.87	-0.32

Drawdowns

QULL vs. DUHP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QULL drawdown since its inception was -51.83%, which is greater than DUHP's maximum drawdown of -20.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QULL and DUHP.

Drawdown Indicators

	QULL	DUHP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-51.83%	-20.05%	-31.78%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.43%	-8.99%	-9.44%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-36.82%	-17.86%	-18.96%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-51.83%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.02%	0.00%	-0.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-14.07%	-4.04%	-10.03%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.15%	2.05%	+2.10%

Volatility

QULL vs. DUHP - Volatility Comparison

ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN (QULL) has a higher volatility of 4.89% compared to DFA Dimensional US High Profitability ETF (DUHP) at 2.50%. This indicates that QULL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DUHP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QULL	DUHP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.89%	2.50%	+2.39%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.80%	8.63%	+10.17%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.46%	11.24%	+13.22%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	35.62%	16.24%	+19.38%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	35.16%	16.24%	+18.92%

QULL vs. DUHP - Expense Ratio Comparison

QULL has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than DUHP's 0.21% expense ratio.

Dividends

QULL vs. DUHP - Dividend Comparison

QULL has not paid dividends to shareholders, while DUHP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.97%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
DUHP DFA Dimensional US High Profitability ETF	0.97%	1.02%	1.13%	1.51%	1.10%
QULL ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QULL and DUHP in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, QULL and DUHP move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, QULL or DUHP?

QULL has higher volatility (4.89%) compared to DUHP (2.50%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QULL dropped -51.83% vs DUHP's -20.05%.

Which ETF is better, QULL or DUHP?

On 3-year performance, QULL leads with 32.44% vs 19.38% for DUHP. On fees, DUHP is cheaper at 0.21% per year. On volatility, DUHP has been the lower-risk option at 2.50%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QULL or DUHP?

Over the 3-year period, QULL has performed better with a 32.44% return vs 19.38%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QULL or DUHP?

DUHP is cheaper with a 0.21% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for QULL.

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

DUHP has the higher dividend yield at 0.97%, compared with 0.00% for QULL.

What is the main difference between QULL and DUHP?

QULL is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while DUHP is Large Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: UBS and Dimensional. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for QULL and 0.21% for DUHP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DUHP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.97 vs 1.67), 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.