QLD vs SH: returns, risk and drawdowns compared
ProShares Ultra QQQ against ProShares Short S&P500, over the same 20 years (December 2006 to November 2026) with dividends reinvested.
Data updated November 2026
QLD
ProShares Ultra QQQ
10,000 became
259,825
- A year on average
- +17.7%
- Annual volatility
- 39.4%
- Deepest fall
- −81.6%
- Worst month
- −40.9%
SH
ProShares Short S&P500
10,000 became
2,129
- A year on average
- −7.4%
- Annual volatility
- 16.2%
- Deepest fall
- −91.4%
- Worst month
- −16.5%
QLD came out ahead by 25.1 percentage points a year from December 2006 to November 2026. QLD swung more (39.4% against 16.2% a year). The correlation of monthly returns was -0.79: they tended to move in opposite directions.
Growth of 10,000: QLD vs SH
Who was ahead, and when
The gap between the two over the previous three years, at each month-end. Above zero QLD had returned more, below zero SH. QLD was ahead in 93% of the 205 three-year periods.
Annualised 3-year return of QLD minus that of SH, in percentage points a year.
Falls from the previous high
Month-end values. Deepest fall: QLD −81.6%, SH −91.4%.
All the figures
| QLD | SH | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual return (CAGR) | +17.7% | −7.4% |
| Total return | +2498% | −79% |
| Annual volatility | 39.4% | 16.2% |
| Deepest fall (month-end) | −81.6% | −91.4% |
| Worst month | −40.9% | −16.5% |
| Best month | +32.9% | +14.2% |
| Positive months | 62% | 38% |
| Best year | 2009: +121.2% | 2007: +34.2% |
| Worst year | 2008: −72.9% | 2009: −27.0% |
| 1-year return | −1.2% | −3.9% |
| 5 years, a year | −4.2% | +0.1% |
| 10 years, a year | +22.1% | −8.8% |
| Trading currency | USD | USD |
First nine rows: the same 240 months for both funds. Trailing returns: to each fund’s last close.
Year by year
Full calendar years both funds were trading. The higher of the two each year is in bold.
Holding both: half QLD, half SH
| QLD alone | SH alone | 50/50 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| A year on average | +17.7% | −7.4% | +8.3% |
| Annual volatility | 39.4% | 16.2% | 14.2% |
| Deepest fall (month-end) | −81.6% | −91.4% | −36.4% |
| Worst month | −40.9% | −16.5% | −23.2% |
Because the two did not always move together, the mix swung less than the average of the two (14.2% against 27.8%). Rebalanced to 50/50 every month, before costs.
Questions
Which has returned more, QLD or SH?
From December 2006 to November 2026, QLD returned +17.7% a year and SH −7.4% a year, with dividends reinvested. Over rolling 3-year periods QLD did better in 93% of cases. Past returns do not predict future returns.
Which is riskier, QLD or SH?
Over the same months annual volatility was 39.4% for QLD and 16.2% for SH; the deepest fall from a month-end high was 81.6% and 91.4%, and the worst single month −40.9% and −16.5%.
How correlated are QLD and SH?
The correlation of their monthly returns was -0.79: they tended to move in opposite directions. Combining them has historically smoothed the ups and downs of either one alone.
What about holding both QLD and SH?
Half in each, rebalanced every month, returned +8.3% a year over the same period, with 14.2% annual volatility and a deepest month-end fall of 36.4%.
More comparisons
How the figures are calculated
Total return in the fund’s trading currency, from end-of-day prices with dividends reinvested on the ex-date. The fund’s own ongoing charges are already reflected in its price; trading costs, taxes and currency conversion are not included. Past returns do not predict future returns.
The comparison uses only the months in which both funds have prices, so the figures cover the same period even when one fund is older.
Source: MarketStack end-of-day prices, total return with dividends reinvested. Figures are historical and descriptive; they are not forecasts and not investment advice. MEDGE Capital does not recommend buying or selling any instrument. Risk disclaimer.