QLD vs UPRO: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
QLD and UPRO are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. QLD is ProShares - Ultra QQQ, while UPRO is ProShares - UltraPro S&P500. UPRO is broader by holdings count, with 518 positions versus 118 for QLD. UPRO has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has UPRO ahead on AIQ Score, 41 versus 39.
What is the main difference between QLD and UPRO?
UPRO holds 518 positions to QLD's 118.
| Metric | QLD | UPRO |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.96% | 0.88% |
| Holdings | 118 | 518 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.14% | 0.79% |
| Average volume | 4,120,535 | 1,999,685 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +21.8% | +28.7% |
| YTD return | +22.4% | +24.4% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +16.5% | +17.2% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 40% | 38.2% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -25.2% | -26.9% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -63.7% | -63.9% |
| Beta | 2.90 | 3.00 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.65 | 0.77 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.99 | 1.18 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 39/100 | 41/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 2/10 |
| Momentum | 27/100 | 33/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 20/100 | 28/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
ProShares - Ultra QQQ vs ProShares - UltraPro S&P500
UPRO leads
UPRO leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from QLD.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support UPRO, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
ProShares - Ultra QQQ
ProShares - UltraPro S&P500
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors UPRO over QLD, 41 versus 39 as of Oct 24, 2026. UPRO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum, while QLD holds the stronger quality profile. UPRO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor UPRO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. UPRO lead: Reversed — QLD led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; UPRO now leads by 2.
Compare ProShares - Ultra QQQ and ProShares - UltraPro S&P500 across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
QLD vs UPRO: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | QLD | UPRO | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.96% | 0.88% | UPRO |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 118 | 518 | UPRO |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.14% | 0.79% | UPRO |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -63.7% | -63.9% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 40% | 38.2% | UPRO |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare QLD and UPRO against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Risk Resilience20 vs 28UPRO +8
- Momentum27 vs 33UPRO +6
- Quality63 vs 58QLD +5
- Value35 vs 37Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor UPRO. UPRO’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum; QLD keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-23, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-22.
Largest factor move: Value +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
UPRO's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QLD and UPRO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
UPRO (ProShares - UltraPro S&P500): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
QLD (ProShares - Ultra QQQ): the counter-case, on quality — but at materially higher volatility, 36.7% against 29.2%.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | QLD | UPRO | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.96% | 0.88% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 118 | 518 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 4,120,535 | 1,999,685 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 40% | 38.2% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -25.2% | -26.9% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.65 | 0.77 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 2.90 | 3.00 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
QLD vs UPRO: five-year payout growth
QLD grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 153.01% a year against UPRO's 87.90%. QLD: The 2020 payout was 94.1% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. QLD: The payout jumped 132.9% in 2023, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change. QLD: A single payment in an endpoint year was 4.8x the fund's median payment, so one distribution carries much of the result. UPRO: The 2020 payout was 70.7% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. UPRO: The payout jumped 283.4% in 2022, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change. UPRO: A single payment in an endpoint year was 6.6x the fund's median payment, so one distribution carries much of the result.
| Dividend metric | QLD | UPRO |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 153.01% | 87.90% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.001 | $0.042 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.118 | $0.973 |
| Peer rank | #2 of 138 | #4 of 138 |
Split-adjusted annual distributions, 2020–2025. Research as of Sep 19, 2026. Yield and expense ratio above are current values, not part of this window.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor UPRO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 39 vs 41 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 35 vs 37 |
| Technicals | UPRO | Price vs 50-day -6.6% vs -4.1%; vs 200-day 4% vs 8.5% |
| Risk Resilience | UPRO | Risk Resilience 20 vs 28 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of QLD and UPRO and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on UPRO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 24 – Oct 23UPRO lead: Reversed — QLD led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; UPRO now leads by 2.
- Today
- UPRO +2
- 39 vs 41
- 7 sessions ago
- UPRO +6
- 42 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- QLD +3
- 53 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- UPRO +4
- 45 vs 49
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 12 when UPRO moved ahead of QLD.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only QLD
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
UPRO leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.13%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.7%, AIQ -2 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1QLD closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 8 points behind, the largest single contributor to UPRO's edge.
- 2QLD's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3UPRO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
UPRO leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | QLD | UPRO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.8% | -1.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -11.1% | -5.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 4.4% | 5.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 7.4% | 13.4% |
| Year to date | 22.4% | 24.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 21.8% | 28.7% |
Technicals
UPRO has the stronger structure| Metric | QLD | UPRO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 23.6 | 35.3 |
| ADX (14) | 25.3 | 15.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.6% | -4.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4% | 8.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 36.7% | 29.2% |
Risk
UPRO is the more resilient| Metric | QLD | UPRO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.9 | 3 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.65 | 0.77 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.99 | 1.18 |
| Max drawdown | -25.2% | -26.9% |
| Current drawdown | -14.5% | -8.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 40% | 38.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4% | -4.1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between QLD and UPRO?
UPRO holds 518 positions to QLD's 118.
Which ETF is more diversified, QLD or UPRO?
UPRO holds more positions: 518 versus 118 for QLD.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
UPRO has the lower expense ratio, 0.88% a year against 0.96% for QLD.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
UPRO, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 0.79% against 0.14% for QLD.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
QLD has been more volatile over the past year, at 40% annualized against 38.2% for UPRO.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -63.7% for QLD and -63.9% for UPRO.
Compare QLD and UPRO with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.