QLD ranks 1st and LTL 37th of 95 funds in the Leveraged Long (2x & Other) Category.
LTL vs QLD
QLD −0.06pt a year
0.95%0.89%
QLD 196.4×the volume
21.1K4.15M
QLD +27.1pt
+4.8%+31.9%
LTL vs QLD Performance
+64.8%+97.9%
- LTL 0.95%
- QLD 0.89%, better
- LTL $4M
- QLD $13.3B
- LTL −28.7%
- QLD +10.7%, better
- LTL 1.44%, better
- QLD 0.15%
- LTL 23
- QLD 113
- LTL 21.1K sh
- QLD 4.15M sh, better
- LTL $19.18
- QLD $82.56
ETF.net Grade
| Pillar | LTL | QLD |
|---|---|---|
| Cost | C51 | A72Higher |
| Mission | A95 | |
| Risk | B55 | B66Higher |
| Tradability | B62 | A100Higher |
| Holdings | C42 | A72Higher |
| Durability | B58 | A81Higher |
Rank among Leveraged Long (2x & Other) funds
Same Category. LTL and QLD are both graded against the same 95 Leveraged Long (2x & Other) funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
Our read on each fund
LTLC
QLDA
In short
LTL The only ETF targeting 2x the daily move of the Communication Services sector, and older than the sector itself: it launched in 2008 as a telecom fund, a decade before GICS redrew the lines to pull in media and internet names.
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
LTL The fund targets twice the daily performance of the Communication Services sector.
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
Worth knowing
LTL vs 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.
LTL vs QLD Cost
Overpaying LTL vs QLD
$997
On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.
LTL 0.95%
$17,869
QLD 0.89%
$16,872
Cost over time
Year by year
| Year | LTL | QLD | Overpaying |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | $1,678 | $1,576 | $102 |
| 20 | $6,322 | $5,953 | $369 |
| 30 | $17,869 | $16,872 | $997 |
- 0.95%LTL
- 0.89%QLD, cheaper
- Middle half of Leveraged Long (2x & Other) funds
- Median 0.95%
QLD 28th cheapest of 95 funds
LTL 32nd cheapest of 95 funds
LTL vs QLD Dividends
- LTL 1.44%, better
- QLD 0.15%
- LTL $0.28
- QLD $0.12
- LTL $0.08
- QLD $0.03
- LTL Sep 23, 2026
- QLD Sep 23, 2026
- LTL Sep 29, 2026
- QLD Sep 29, 2026
- LTL Quarterly
- QLD Quarterly
Distribution history
LTL vs QLD Risk
Fall from peak · 5 years
- LTL
- QLD
Risk facts
- Volatility
- LTL 30.1%, betterQLD 36.7%
- Return per unit of risk
- LTL 0.73QLD 1.04, better
- Worst fall
- LTL −53.2%, betterQLD −63.7%
- Market sensitivity
- LTL 1.69QLD 2.46
LTL and QLD in the news
Popular comparisons
- 0.95% · 0.93%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.89% · 0.93%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.95% · 0.93%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.89% · 0.93%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.95% · 0.95%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.89% · 0.95%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
