QLD vs UPRO ETF Comparison
Compare QLD and UPRO across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between QLD and UPRO?
QLD is ProShares - Ultra QQQ, while UPRO is ProShares - UltraPro S&P500. QLD is tied to Equity; UPRO is tied to Equity. UPRO is broader by holdings count, with 504 positions versus 103 for QLD. QLD is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
| Metric | QLD | UPRO | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.98% | 0.89% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $13.8B | $5.4B | Fund |
| Holdings | 103 | 504 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | 59.5% | 47.7% | Fund |
| Average volume | 3,135,517 | 4,356,508 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Equity | Equity | Fund |
| Annualized volatility | 39.3% | 38.4% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -25.2% | -26.9% | Risk |
| Beta | 2.85 | 3.00 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.06 | 1.19 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | 1.58 | 1.70 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 47/100 | 48/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 3/10 | 3/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 52/100 | 56/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 31/100 | 34/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
ProShares - Ultra QQQ vs ProShares - UltraPro S&P500
UPRO leads
UPRO leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support UPRO, and its current signal state is conflicted.
ProShares - Ultra QQQ
ProShares - UltraPro S&P500
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors UPRO over QLD, 48 versus 47 as of Sep 5, 2026. UPRO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while QLD holds the stronger quality profile. UPRO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor UPRO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. UPRO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare ProShares - Ultra QQQ and ProShares - UltraPro S&P500 across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
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.
- Quality30%64 vs 59QLD +5
- Momentum25%52 vs 56UPRO +4
- Value30%34 vs 37Even
- Risk Resilience15%31 vs 34Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor UPRO. UPRO’s edge is concentrated in momentum; QLD keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum +21
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +10
New signals
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.7%)
UPRO's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
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 momentum.
QLD (ProShares - Ultra QQQ): the counter-case, on quality.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
UPROUPRO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
UPROUPRO on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
UPROUPRO carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
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 | 0.98% | 0.89% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $13.8B | $5.4B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 121 | 522 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 3,135,517 | 4,356,508 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 39.3% | 38.4% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -25.2% | -26.9% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.06 | 1.19 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 2.85 | 3.00 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
QLD and UPRO share 49.92% of their weighted exposure across 88 common holdings.
QLD is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 59.49% of the fund, against 47.68% for UPRO (103 holdings vs 504). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
15 holdings are unique to QLD and 416 to UPRO. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | QLD | UPRO | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| IQMMPROSHARES GENIUS MNY MKT ETF | 9.49% | 19.98% | 9.49% |
| AAPLAPPLE INC | 10.51% | 7.15% | 7.15% |
| MSFTMICROSOFT CORP | 8.26% | 5.62% | 5.62% |
| NVDANVIDIA CORP | 6.03% | 4.1% | 4.1% |
| AMZNAMAZON.COM INC | 6.07% | 3.76% | 3.76% |
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY INC | 6.5% | 1.6% | 1.6% |
| GOOGLALPHABET INC-CL A | 2.17% | 1.49% | 1.49% |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 1.85% | 1.25% | 1.25% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, QLD or UPRO?
UPRO currently has more reported holdings, with 504 positions versus 103.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
UPRO has the lower reported expense ratio in the current fund profile.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
The current dataset does not show a higher-yield winner.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
QLD has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
QLD has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
UPRO currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 48 to 47.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 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 | 47 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 34 vs 37 |
| Technicals | UPRO | Price vs 50-day 1.3% vs 4.2%; vs 200-day 14.5% vs 21.1% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 31 vs 34 |
| 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 · Apr 22 – Sep 3UPRO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- UPRO +1
- 47 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 47 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- UPRO +3
- 49 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- UPRO +2
- 46 vs 48
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 1 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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.37%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (14.77%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.7%)
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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.33%, AIQ +5 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.2%, 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 Momentum gap — currently 4 points behind, the largest single contributor to UPRO's edge.
- 2QLD's EMA Ribbon Compression turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3UPRO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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.
Technicals
UPRO has the stronger structure| Metric | QLD | UPRO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.1 | 45.1 |
| ADX (14) | 11.9 | 13.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.3% | 4.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 14.5% | 21.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.1% | 24.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | QLD | UPRO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.85 | 3 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.06 | 1.19 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.58 | 1.7 |
| Max drawdown | -25.2% | -26.9% |
| Current drawdown | -10.1% | -2.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 39.3% | 38.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.9% | -4.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, QLD or UPRO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, UPRO is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 48 against QLD's 47. The edge comes from momentum. QLD is not without a case — it holds the better quality profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is QLD or UPRO the better buy right now?
UPRO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor UPRO over QLD?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. QLD leads Quality by 5 points; UPRO leads Momentum by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, QLD or UPRO?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, QLD or UPRO?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, QLD or UPRO?
UPRO on the Momentum factor, by 4 points. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, QLD or UPRO?
UPRO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. UPRO carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is QLD more profitable than UPRO?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is UPRO's lead over QLD getting stronger or weaker?
UPRO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-01, when UPRO moved ahead of QLD.
What would change the QLD vs UPRO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: QLD closes the Momentum gap — currently 4 points behind, the largest single contributor to UPRO's edge; QLD's EMA Ribbon Compression turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; UPRO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about QLD and UPRO?
QLD: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. UPRO: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on QLD is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On UPRO it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare QLD and UPRO with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.