Skip to content
etf.net

CIFC vs QLD

Corgi CIFR 2x Daily ETF

CIFCCCboe

ProShares Ultra QQQ

QLDANYSE Arca

Overlap

0.0%by weight

Expense ratio

CIFC −0.44pt a year

CIFC0.45%QLD0.89%

Avg volume · 30D

QLD 184.9×the volume

CIFC24.6KQLD4.54M

CIFC vs QLD Performance

Aug 7, 2026 – Nov 9, 2026

−89.7%CIFC−14.1%QLD

Aug 7, 2026 to Nov 9, 2026. CIFC −89.7%. QLD −14.1%. Use the arrow keys to read each point.−60%−40%0%20%Aug 2026Sep 2026Nov 2026
Expense ratio
CIFC 0.45%, better
QLD 0.89%
Fund size
CIFC $0
QLD $11.5B
1Y total return
CIFC No data
QLD +13.1%
Yield (12M)
CIFC No data
QLD 0.16%
Holdings
CIFC 1
QLD 114
Avg volume (30D)
CIFC 24.6K sh
QLD 4.54M sh, better
NAV per share
CIFC $0.8700
QLD $74.16
52W range

ETF.net Grade

CIFC: Cost 86, Risk 6, Mission not scored, Tradability 14, Holdings not scored, Durability 11. QLD: Cost 72, Risk 61, Mission 96, Tradability 100, Holdings 65, Durability 81.
Pillar letters and Scores for CIFC, QLD, with each pillar’s weight
PillarCIFCQLD
Cost30% weightA86HigherA72
Mission25% weightNot scoredA96
Risk15% weightF6B61Higher
Tradability15% weightF14A100Higher
Holdings10% weightNot scoredB65
Durability5% weightF11A81Higher

Rank among Leveraged Long (2x & Other) funds

How we build Categories ›
Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

Same Category. CIFC and QLD are both graded against the same 95 Leveraged Long (2x & Other) funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

Leveraged Long (2x & Other)⁠

Category · 95 funds
See all 95 ›

QLD ranks 1st and CIFC 37th of 95 funds in the Leveraged Long (2x & Other) Category.

  1. Rank 1AQLDProShares Ultra QQQScore 76
  2. Rank 2AUYGProShares Ultra FinancialsScore 74
  3. Rank 35CQQQUDirexion Daily Magnificent 7 Bull 2X ETFScore 42
  4. Rank 37CCIFCCorgi CIFR 2x Daily ETFScore 40
  5. Rank 37CCOPZDefiance Daily Target 2X Long Copper Miners ETFScore 40

Our read on each fund

ETF.net Research

CIFCCCorgi CIFR 2x Daily ETF

QLDAProShares Ultra QQQ

In short

CIFC No data

QLD The 2x dial on the Nasdaq-100. QLD aims for twice the index's daily move, half the dose of the 3x crowd, and it has been running that playbook since 2006. The multiple resets every session.

Stated mandate

CIFC No data

QLD The fund seeks daily investment results, before fees and expenses, equal to twice the daily performance of the Nasdaq-100 Index.

Why people hold it

CIFC No data

  • QLD Costs 0.89% net of a waiver through September 30, 2027 (0.96% gross), below the leveraged-bull category median and under Ultra stablemates ROM (0.93%) and DDM (0.95%).
  • Hits its stated daily 2x mark with very little drift, one of the tighter implementations among the roughly 100 leveraged bull funds in its group.
  • A multi-billion-dollar, actively traded fund, so entering and exiting rarely means hunting for the other side of the trade.
  • Trading since June 2006, which makes it one of the longest-running leveraged equity funds on the US shelf rather than a recent product-shelf experiment.

Worth knowing

CIFC No data

  • QLD The 2x objective covers one day only. Hold longer and daily resets plus compounding can push results away from twice the index's move over that stretch, in either direction.proshares.com
  • Magnification runs both ways: a down day in the Nasdaq-100 lands on shareholders at roughly double size, same as an up day.
  • Cheap for geared exposure, still well above a plain unleveraged Nasdaq-100 tracker. The waiver is set to lapse September 30, 2027, after which the 0.96% gross rate applies unless renewed.

Full CIFC profile⁠

Full QLD profile⁠

CIFC vs QLD Holdings

How CIFC and QLD differ

Overlap by weight

0.0%

About this figure: CIFC gets much of its exposure from swaps and futures, which aren’t counted.

QLD gets much of its exposure from swaps and futures, which aren’t counted.

Level by level

  • Asset classLeveraged/Inverse, Stocks0.0%
  • Holdings0 in both0.0%

Sector

No Sector split for CIFC.

Country, concentration and asset class

Country by domicile

No country split for CIFC.

Concentration

Weight in the 10 largest Holdings

  • CIFC199.1%
  • QLD51.0%

Securities held

  • CIFC0
  • QLD113

Asset class

CIFC
Leveraged/Inverse
QLD
Stocks

Holdings

  • Only in CIFC0
  • In both0
  • Only in QLD113

Only in CIFC

0 securities, 0.0% of CIFC by weight

Only in QLD

113 securities, 91.7% of QLD by weight

  • Proshares Genius Mny Mkt Etf11.96%
  • Apple Inc6.38%
  • NVIDIA Corp5.75%

Weight gaps

CIFC and QLD share no securities.

All 1 CIFC holdings⁠All 121 QLD holdings⁠

How we measure overlap

Each holding counts at its smaller weight in the two funds, summed over the full Holdings. Sector, country and asset class use the same rule on each fund’s split. Cash, FX and derivative lines stay out of the counts. Two bond funds get no overlap figure.

CIFC vs QLD Cost

Overpaying QLD vs CIFC

$7,831

On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.

  • CIFC 0.45%

    $9,041

  • QLD 0.89%

    $16,872

$10,000
30 years

Cost over time

  • CIFC 0.45%
  • QLD 0.89%
  • Overpaying
One line per fund, from year 0 to year 30. Use the arrow keys to read each point.$0$5K$10K$15K$20K051015202530QLD $16,872CIFC $9,041

Year by year

YearCIFCQLDOverpaying
10$812$1,576$764
20$3,128$5,953$2,825
30$9,041$16,872$7,831

Expense ratio

  • 0.45%CIFC, cheaper
  • 0.89%QLD
  • Middle half of Leveraged Long (2x & Other) funds
  • Median 0.95%

CIFC 3rd cheapest of 95 funds

QLD 28th cheapest of 95 funds

CIFC vs QLD Dividends

Last 12 months to Nov 9, 2026
Yield (12M)
CIFC No data
QLD 0.16%
Payout (12M)
CIFC None
QLD $0.12
Last payment
CIFC No data
QLD $0.03
Ex-dividend
CIFC No data
QLD Sep 23, 2026
Paid on
CIFC No data
QLD Sep 29, 2026
Frequency
CIFC No data
QLD Quarterly

Distribution history

Per share, 2017 to 2026, same scale for both

CIFCAll CIFC payments⁠

No distribution history available.

QLDQuarterly · 21 paymentsAll QLD payments⁠
One bar per payment. 21 payments from 2017 to 2026 YTD. Mar 22, 2017 $0.0012; Jun 21, 2017 $0.00044; Dec 26, 2018 $0.005; Mar 20, 2019 $0.0078; Jun 25, 2019 $0.0052; Dec 24, 2019 $0.0062; Mar 25, 2020 $0.0011; Dec 22, 2022 $0.05; Sep 20, 2023 $0.09; Dec 20, 2023 $0.04; Mar 20, 2024 $0.03; Jun 26, 2024 $0.05; Sep 25, 2024 $0.03; Dec 23, 2024 $0.03; Mar 26, 2025 $0.01; Jun 25, 2025 $0.06; Sep 24, 2025 $0.02; Dec 24, 2025 $0.02; Mar 25, 2026 $0.01; Jun 24, 2026 $0.06; Sep 23, 2026 $0.03. Use the arrow keys to read each point.$0$0.102017202020232026YTD

CIFC vs QLD Risk

Fall from peak · 5 years

This chart needs five years of history for both funds.

Risk facts

VolatilityStd dev, 3 years
CIFC No dataQLD 36.7%
Return per unit of riskSharpe ratio, 3 years
CIFC No dataQLD 1.04
Worst fallMax drawdown, 5 years
CIFC No dataQLD −63.7%
Market sensitivityBeta, 5 years
CIFC 0.17QLD 2.48

CIFC and QLD in the news

All news⁠

Popular comparisons

  • CIFCCvsUYGA

    Corgi CIFR 2x Daily ETF · ProShares Ultra Financials

    Expense ratio
    0.45% · 0.93%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

  • QLDAvsUYGA

    ProShares Ultra QQQ · ProShares Ultra Financials

    Expense ratio
    0.89% · 0.93%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

  • CIFCCvsROMA

    Corgi CIFR 2x Daily ETF · ProShares Ultra Technology

    Expense ratio
    0.45% · 0.93%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

  • QLDAvsROMA

    ProShares Ultra QQQ · ProShares Ultra Technology

    Expense ratio
    0.89% · 0.93%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

  • CIFCCvsDDMB

    Corgi CIFR 2x Daily ETF · ProShares Ultra Dow30

    Expense ratio
    0.45% · 0.95%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

  • QLDAvsDDMB

    ProShares Ultra QQQ · ProShares Ultra Dow30

    Expense ratio
    0.89% · 0.95%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.