TMDV vs. QLD
TMDV (ProShares Russell U.S. Dividend Growers ETF) and QLD (ProShares Ultra QQQ) are both exchange-traded funds - TMDV is a Mid Cap Value Equities fund tracking the Russell 3000 Dividend Elite Index, while QLD is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index (200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, TMDV returned 2.41%/yr vs 25.75%/yr for QLD. At a 0.46 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. TMDV charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for QLD.
Performance
TMDV vs. QLD - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, TMDV achieves a 4.53% return, which is significantly lower than QLD's 42.06% return.
TMDV
- 1D
- -0.33%
- 1M
- 0.05%
- YTD
- 4.53%
- 6M
- 4.29%
- 1Y
- 5.96%
- 3Y*
- 4.85%
- 5Y*
- 2.41%
- 10Y*
- —
QLD
- 1D
- -0.53%
- 1M
- 21.54%
- YTD
- 42.06%
- 6M
- 37.45%
- 1Y
- 85.49%
- 3Y*
- 50.15%
- 5Y*
- 25.75%
- 10Y*
- 36.10%
TMDV vs. QLD - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TMDV ProShares Russell U.S. Dividend Growers ETF | 4.53% | 2.91% | 2.64% | 2.25% | -5.10% | 23.45% | 4.82% | 3.26% |
QLD ProShares Ultra QQQ | 42.06% | 30.36% | 42.82% | 117.72% | -60.52% | 54.67% | 88.90% | 12.44% |
Correlation
The correlation between TMDV and QLD is 0.20, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.20 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.30 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.45 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 8, 2019 | 0.46 |
Over the past year, the correlation between TMDV and QLD has dropped to 0.20 - well below their long-term average of 0.46, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.
TMDV vs. QLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
TMDV
QLD
Consumer Defensive
Financial Services
Industrials
Utilities
Basic Materials
Consumer Cyclical
Healthcare
Real Estate
Energy
Technology
Communication Services
-
Consumer Defensive
TMDV
QLD
Financial Services
TMDV
QLD
Industrials
TMDV
QLD
Utilities
TMDV
QLD
Basic Materials
TMDV
QLD
Consumer Cyclical
TMDV
QLD
Healthcare
TMDV
QLD
Real Estate
TMDV
QLD
Energy
TMDV
QLD
Technology
TMDV
QLD
Communication Services
TMDV
-
QLD
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
TMDV vs. QLD — Risk / Return Rank
TMDV
QLD
TMDV vs. QLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Russell U.S. Dividend Growers ETF (TMDV) and ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD). 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.
| TMDV | QLD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.21 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.34 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.09 | 1.41 | -0.32 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.61 | 3.42 | -2.81 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.50 | 11.92 | -10.42 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| TMDV | QLD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.50 | 2.70 | -2.21 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.17 | 0.58 | -0.41 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.81 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.30 | 0.60 | -0.29 |
Drawdowns
TMDV vs. QLD - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum TMDV drawdown since its inception was -33.42%, smaller than the maximum QLD drawdown of -83.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TMDV and QLD.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| TMDV | QLD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -33.42% | -83.13% | +49.71% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -9.82% | -25.13% | +15.31% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -16.02% | -42.29% | +26.27% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -17.11% | -63.68% | +46.57% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -63.68% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -6.56% | -0.53% | -6.03% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.43% | -18.17% | +12.74% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.99% | 7.20% | -3.21% |
Volatility
TMDV vs. QLD - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for ProShares Russell U.S. Dividend Growers ETF (TMDV) is 2.97%, while ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) has a volatility of 8.90%. This indicates that TMDV experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QLD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| TMDV | QLD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.97% | 8.90% | -5.93% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 8.53% | 24.08% | -15.55% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 12.10% | 31.85% | -19.75% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 14.43% | 44.74% | -30.31% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.64% | 44.56% | -25.92% |
TMDV vs. QLD - Expense Ratio Comparison
TMDV has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than QLD's 0.95% expense ratio.
Dividends
TMDV vs. QLD - Dividend Comparison
TMDV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.62%, more than QLD's 0.12% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QLD ProShares Ultra QQQ | 0.12% | 0.17% | 0.25% | 0.33% | 0.31% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.13% | 0.06% | 0.02% | 0.21% | 0.11% |
TMDV ProShares Russell U.S. Dividend Growers ETF | 2.62% | 2.65% | 2.70% | 2.45% | 2.46% | 2.14% | 2.28% | 0.16% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
TMDV and QLD have a correlation of 0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
QLD has higher volatility (8.90%) compared to TMDV (2.97%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TMDV dropped -33.42% vs QLD's -83.13%.
On 5-year performance, QLD leads with 25.75% vs 2.41% for TMDV. On fees, TMDV is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, TMDV has been the lower-risk option at 2.97%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, QLD has performed better with a 25.75% return vs 2.41%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
TMDV is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for QLD.
TMDV has the higher dividend yield at 2.62%, compared with 0.12% for QLD.
TMDV is categorized as Mid Cap Value Equities, while QLD is Leveraged Equities. TMDV tracks Russell 3000 Dividend Elite Index, while QLD tracks NASDAQ-100 Index (200%). Their fees differ too: 0.35% for TMDV and 0.95% for QLD.
QLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.70 vs 0.50), 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.
Find the right allocation for TMDV and QLD
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