PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
RWL vs. TQQQ
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

RWL vs. TQQQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL) and ProShares UltraPro QQQ (TQQQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RWL achieves a 11.07% return, which is significantly lower than TQQQ's 64.46% return. Over the past 10 years, RWL has underperformed TQQQ with an annualized return of 13.96%, while TQQQ has yielded a comparatively higher 45.33% annualized return.


RWL

1D
-0.42%
1M
3.13%
YTD
11.07%
6M
11.66%
1Y
26.76%
3Y*
19.96%
5Y*
12.89%
10Y*
13.96%

TQQQ

1D
-0.76%
1M
33.35%
YTD
64.46%
6M
55.93%
1Y
137.89%
3Y*
69.49%
5Y*
28.37%
10Y*
45.33%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

RWL vs. TQQQ - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
RWL
Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF
11.07%18.65%16.45%17.43%-6.00%30.29%9.14%27.83%-7.74%20.34%
TQQQ
ProShares UltraPro QQQ
64.46%34.35%58.27%198.04%-79.09%82.98%110.05%133.84%-19.79%118.06%

Correlation

The correlation between RWL and TQQQ is 0.55, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


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

0.55

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

0.60

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

0.69

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.68

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 12, 2010

0.74

The correlation between RWL and TQQQ shifts across timeframes, from 0.55 (1 year) to 0.74 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RWL vs. TQQQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
RWL
TQQQ

Healthcare

19.5%
4.2%

Financial Services

15.4%
0.2%

Technology

13.7%
53.8%

Consumer Cyclical

12.3%
12.3%

Consumer Defensive

11.1%
7.7%

Industrials

8.6%
2.8%

Communication Services

7.5%
15.8%

Energy

6.6%
0.6%

Utilities

2.4%
1.4%

Basic Materials

2.1%
1.1%

Real Estate

0.9%
0.1%

Healthcare

RWL
19.5%
TQQQ
4.2%

Financial Services

RWL
15.4%
TQQQ
0.2%

Technology

RWL
13.7%
TQQQ
53.8%

Consumer Cyclical

RWL
12.3%
TQQQ
12.3%

Consumer Defensive

RWL
11.1%
TQQQ
7.7%

Industrials

RWL
8.6%
TQQQ
2.8%

Communication Services

RWL
7.5%
TQQQ
15.8%

Energy

RWL
6.6%
TQQQ
0.6%

Utilities

RWL
2.4%
TQQQ
1.4%

Basic Materials

RWL
2.1%
TQQQ
1.1%

Real Estate

RWL
0.9%
TQQQ
0.1%

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

RWL vs. TQQQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

RWL
RWL Risk / Return Rank: 8181
Overall Rank
RWL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8181
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RWL Sortino Ratio Rank: 8282
Sortino Ratio Rank
RWL Omega Ratio Rank: 7979
Omega Ratio Rank
RWL Calmar Ratio Rank: 7878
Calmar Ratio Rank
RWL Martin Ratio Rank: 8383
Martin Ratio Rank

TQQQ
TQQQ Risk / Return Rank: 7171
Overall Rank
TQQQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8686
Sharpe Ratio Rank
TQQQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 6565
Sortino Ratio Rank
TQQQ Omega Ratio Rank: 6565
Omega Ratio Rank
TQQQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 7373
Calmar Ratio Rank
TQQQ Martin Ratio Rank: 6666
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.

RWL vs. TQQQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL) and ProShares UltraPro QQQ (TQQQ). 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.


RWLTQQQDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.23

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.67

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.48

1.40

+0.07

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.05

3.75

+0.30

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

17.12

12.27

+4.85

RWL vs. TQQQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RWL Sharpe Ratio is 2.69, which is comparable to the TQQQ Sharpe Ratio of 2.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RWL and TQQQ, 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


RWLTQQQDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.69

2.92

-0.23

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.89

0.43

+0.46

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.83

0.69

+0.14

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.58

0.74

-0.16

Drawdowns

RWL vs. TQQQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RWL drawdown since its inception was -54.83%, smaller than the maximum TQQQ drawdown of -81.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RWL and TQQQ.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


RWLTQQQDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-54.83%

-81.66%

+26.83%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.64%

-36.97%

+30.33%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-14.39%

-58.04%

+43.65%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.49%

-81.66%

+64.17%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-36.04%

-81.66%

+45.62%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.57%

-0.76%

+0.19%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.45%

-18.52%

+12.07%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.57%

11.28%

-9.71%

Volatility

RWL vs. TQQQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL) is 2.12%, while ProShares UltraPro QQQ (TQQQ) has a volatility of 13.29%. This indicates that RWL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than TQQQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


RWLTQQQDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.12%

13.29%

-11.17%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.12%

36.04%

-28.92%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.00%

47.60%

-37.60%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.50%

66.53%

-52.03%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.86%

65.96%

-49.10%

RWL vs. TQQQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

RWL has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than TQQQ's 0.95% expense ratio.


Dividends

RWL vs. TQQQ - Dividend Comparison

RWL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.25%, more than TQQQ's 0.36% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
RWL
Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF
1.25%1.35%1.43%1.60%1.62%1.35%1.75%1.87%1.99%1.60%1.71%1.97%
TQQQ
ProShares UltraPro QQQ
0.36%0.65%1.27%1.26%0.57%0.00%0.00%0.06%0.11%0.00%0.00%0.01%

Frequently Asked Questions


RWL and TQQQ have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

TQQQ has higher volatility (13.29%) compared to RWL (2.12%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RWL dropped -54.83% vs TQQQ's -81.66%.

On 10-year performance, TQQQ leads with 45.33% vs 13.96% for RWL. On fees, RWL is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, RWL has been the lower-risk option at 2.12%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, TQQQ has performed better with a 45.33% return vs 13.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

RWL is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for TQQQ.

RWL has the higher dividend yield at 1.25%, compared with 0.36% for TQQQ.

RWL is categorized as S&P 500, while TQQQ is Leveraged Equities. RWL tracks S&P 500 Revenue-Weighted Index, while TQQQ tracks NASDAQ-100 Index (300%). They also come from different issuers: Invesco and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for RWL and 0.95% for TQQQ.

TQQQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.92 vs 2.69), 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 RWL and TQQQ

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