QULL vs. FBGX

Last updated Apr 2, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN (QULL) and UBS AG FI Enhanced Large Cap Growth ETN (FBGX).

QULL and FBGX are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. QULL is a passively managed fund by UBS that tracks the performance of the MSCI USA Sector Neutral Quality Index. It was launched on Feb 5, 2021. FBGX is a passively managed fund by UBS that tracks the performance of the Russell 1000 Growth Index (200%). It was launched on Jun 11, 2014. Both QULL and FBGX are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.

Performance

QULL vs. FBGX - 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 UBS AG FI Enhanced Large Cap Growth ETN (FBGX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

QULL vs. FBGX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
QULL ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN	-6.95%	17.61%	38.03%	57.07%	-42.00%	51.36%
FBGX UBS AG FI Enhanced Large Cap Growth ETN	0.00%	0.00%	35.73%	83.74%	-56.41%	44.91%

Returns By Period

QULL

• 1D: 1.22%
• 1M: -11.66%
• YTD: -6.95%
• 6M: -4.90%
• 1Y: 20.02%
• 3Y*: 26.76%
• 5Y*: 13.82%
• 10Y*: —

FBGX

• 1D: —
• 1M: —
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QULL vs. FBGX - Expense Ratio Comparison

QULL has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is lower than FBGX's 1.29% expense ratio.

FBGX

UBS AG FI Enhanced Large Cap Growth ETN

QULL

ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN

Return for Risk

QULL vs. FBGX — Risk / Return Rank

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

QULL

QULL Risk / Return Rank: 33
QULL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
QULL Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
QULL Omega Ratio Rank: 34
QULL Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
QULL Martin Ratio Rank: 38

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. FBGX - 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 UBS AG FI Enhanced Large Cap Growth ETN (FBGX). 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	FBGX	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.54	—	—
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.05	—	—
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	—	—
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.82	—	—
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	3.82	—	—
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	QULL	FBGX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.54	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.39	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.43	—	—

Correlation

The correlation between QULL and FBGX is 0.74, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.

Dividends

QULL vs. FBGX - Dividend Comparison

Neither QULL nor FBGX has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Drawdowns

Drawdown Indicators

	QULL	FBGX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-51.83%	—	—
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-24.81%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-51.83%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-12.36%	—	—
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-14.46%	—	—
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.32%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	QULL	FBGX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.33%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.75%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	37.54%	—	—
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	35.65%	—	—
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	35.49%	—	—