Two ProShares funds on the same index. What 2× and 3× daily leverage on the Nasdaq‑100 returned since 2016, how deep each fell, why choppy years hurt more than the labels suggest, and what an exit rule changed.
Is the market backdrop risk‑on or risk‑off? Get the daily read in Exent Market intel →
QLD aims for 2× the Nasdaq‑100’s daily return and TQQQ for 3×; both are ProShares funds that reset their leverage every day. QLD (Ultra QQQ) launched in June 2006 and TQQQ (UltraPro QQQ) in February 2010. ProShares listed gross expense ratios of 0.96% and 0.94% in October 2026, with fee waivers bringing the net figure lower. Fees are the small part of the decision. The leverage is the large part, and it makes both funds the holdings that most need a plan for portfolio protection.
Held the whole time (Jul 2016 – Sep 2026, daily closes, dividends reinvested):
| Fund | Return a year | Volatility | Worst fall | Worst fall dates |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nasdaq‑100 (QQQ) | 21.5% | 22.3% | −35.1% | Nov 2021 → Nov 2022 |
| 2× Nasdaq‑100 (QLD) | 35.0% | 44.6% | −63.7% | Nov 2021 → Dec 2022 |
| 3× Nasdaq‑100 (TQQQ) | 44.1% | 66.1% | −81.6% | Nov 2021 → Dec 2022 |
| Fund | Nasdaq‑100 (QQQ) | 2× Nasdaq‑100 (QLD) | 3× Nasdaq‑100 (TQQQ) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Return a year | 21.5% | 35.0% | 44.1% |
| Volatility | 22.3% | 44.6% | 66.1% |
| Worst fall | −35.1% | −63.7% | −81.6% |
| Worst fall dates | Nov 2021 → Nov 2022 | Nov 2021 → Dec 2022 | Nov 2021 → Dec 2022 |
The leveraged ETF explainer in this library uses monthly data over the ten years to Sep 2026 and shows slightly lower figures (TQQQ 41.4% a year); the window and the data frequency explain the gap, not the funds.
Data through the close of Oct 20, 2026. The S&P 500 fell 1.2% over the last five trading days, and the Nasdaq‑100 fell 3.5%. The S&P 500 is 1.3% below its record close of Oct 6: a small dip from its record. It is 6.4% above its 200‑day average (+7.9% a week earlier). Its 20‑day volatility is 9.4% a year, calmer than 71% of trading days since 2016.
Daily closes over the last year, through Oct 20, 2026. Green: the index above its average; red: below it.
Year‑to‑date return through Oct 20, 2026: what each fund returned next to its multiple times the index’s return. The gap is the daily reset at work.
| Fund | Last 5 days | Year to date | Multiple × index | From its high |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2× S&P 500 (SSO) | −2.4% | +21.6% | +26.2% | −3.1% |
| 3× S&P 500 (UPRO) | −3.7% | +29.5% | +39.3% | −5.1% |
| 2× Nasdaq‑100 (QLD) | −7.2% | +27.2% | +33.9% | −11.1% |
| 3× Nasdaq‑100 (TQQQ) | −10.7% | +33.8% | +50.9% | −19.3% |
| 3× Russell 2000 (TNA) | −1.6% | +22.5% | +36.7% | −48.2% |
| 3× chip stocks (SOXL) | −23.5% | +132.1% | +198.4% | −67.6% |
Last updated Oct 20, 2026. Members only.
| Exent regime pillar | Today |
|---|---|
| Liquidity | |
| Credit stress | |
| Economic cycle | |
| Sentiment | |
| Regime: Risk ON · Neutral · Risk OFF |
Price trend and volatility show what the market has already done. Exent’s macro regime score reads the backdrop behind it (liquidity, credit stress, the economic cycle and sentiment) and classifies it as Risk ON, Neutral or Risk OFF. Market intel members see today’s reading and get an alert when it changes.
The third unit of leverage added less return than the second and still deepened the worst fall by 17.9 points. Doubling the Nasdaq‑100 lifted the return from 21.5% to 35.0% a year; tripling it lifted it to 44.1%. Volatility went from 22.3% to 44.6% to 66.1%, and the worst fall from −35.1% to −63.7% to −81.6%.
| Illustrative | $100,000 grew to (Jul 2016 – Sep 2026) | Worst fall on $250,000 | Gain needed to get back |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nasdaq‑100 (QQQ) | $737,300 | −$87,750 | +54.1% |
| 2× (QLD) | $2,173,900 | −$159,250 | +175.5% |
| 3× (TQQQ) | $4,240,800 | −$204,000 | +443.5% |
Those end values came from a decade in which QQQ returned 21.5% a year and recovered every fall within about two years. An investor who sold TQQQ near its December 2022 low locked in the loss; one who held needed a 443.5% gain, which took until July 2024. The same trade‑off on the S&P 500 is in SSO vs UPRO vs SPXL.
Because daily reset rewards steady trends and punishes swings. In each table, the middle column is a simple multiple of the index’s calendar‑year return, not something an investor could buy.
| Year | Index (QQQ) | 2× the index | The fund (QLD) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | +32.7% | +65.4% | +70.0% |
| 2018 | −0.1% | −0.2% | −8.3% |
| 2019 | +39.0% | +78.0% | +81.8% |
| 2020 | +48.6% | +97.2% | +88.8% |
| 2021 | +27.4% | +54.8% | +54.7% |
| 2022 | −32.6% | −65.2% | −60.5% |
| 2023 | +54.9% | +109.8% | +117.1% |
| 2024 | +25.6% | +51.2% | +42.8% |
| 2025 | +20.8% | +41.6% | +30.3% |
| 2026 (to Sep 2026) | +20.6% | +41.2% | +35.9% |
| Year | Index (QQQ) | 3× the index | The fund (TQQQ) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | +32.7% | +98.1% | +118.2% |
| 2018 | −0.1% | −0.3% | −19.7% |
| 2019 | +39.0% | +117.0% | +134.0% |
| 2020 | +48.6% | +145.8% | +110.1% |
| 2021 | +27.4% | +82.2% | +83.0% |
| 2022 | −32.6% | −97.8% | −79.0% |
| 2023 | +54.9% | +164.7% | +203.0% |
| 2024 | +25.6% | +76.8% | +60.5% |
| 2025 | +20.8% | +62.4% | +35.1% |
| 2026 (to Sep 2026) | +20.6% | +61.8% | +48.2% |
Four years tell the story. In 2018 the index ended flat, but TQQQ lost 19.7%. In 2022 the index fell 32.6% and TQQQ 79.0%, less than three times, because a steady fall shrinks the fund’s exposure as it goes. In 2023, a steady climb, TQQQ returned 203.0% against 164.7% for three times the index. In 2025 a sharp spring crash cut TQQQ to 35.1%, against 62.4% for three times.
The drag can leave a 3× fund behind a 1× fund over a full year: a Motley Fool analysis published on Yahoo Finance found TQQQ returned 3.2% in the year to July 7, 2025, while QQQ returned 11.7%. More on the mechanics: leveraged ETF decay.
TQQQ lost more than half its value in all four selloffs since 2018, and QLD lost about 40% or more in each. The table shows each fund’s largest peak‑to‑trough fall inside each selloff.
| Fund | Q4 2018 | COVID 2020 | 2022 bear | 2025 tariffs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nasdaq‑100 (QQQ) | −22.8% | −28.6% | −34.8% | −22.8% |
| 2× Nasdaq‑100 (QLD) | −42.3% | −51.7% | −63.1% | −41.8% |
| 3× Nasdaq‑100 (TQQQ) | −57.9% | −69.9% | −80.9% | −56.7% |
| Fund | Nasdaq‑100 (QQQ) | 2× Nasdaq‑100 (QLD) | 3× Nasdaq‑100 (TQQQ) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q4 2018 | −22.8% | −42.3% | −57.9% |
| COVID 2020 | −28.6% | −51.7% | −69.9% |
| 2022 bear | −34.8% | −63.1% | −80.9% |
| 2025 tariffs | −22.8% | −41.8% | −56.7% |
2022 was the worst because it was long: the Nasdaq‑100 fell for most of the year, and each leg down compounded. The 2025 fall was fast instead: Benzinga reported that TQQQ fell 57% from its February high to its early‑April low, while investors added a net $7.1 billion to the fund from February 19. Before the study window, QLD fell 84.1% in the 2007–09 financial crisis while QQQ fell 53.6%, in Exent’s data; TQQQ did not exist yet. Fund data: QLD, TQQQ. Holding TQQQ for years is covered in can you hold TQQQ long term.
On the Nasdaq‑100 funds an exit rule cut the worst falls by about a third and cost much less return than on the S&P 500 funds. In this hypothetical backtest (Jan 2017 – Sep 2026), each fund was held while QQQ closed above its 200‑day average the day before and swapped for T‑bills otherwise; no trading costs or taxes.
| Fund | Hold: a year | Hold: worst fall | 200‑day rule: a year | Rule: worst fall | Time invested |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nasdaq‑100 (QQQ) | 21.4% | −35.1% | 19.2% | −21.9% | 83% |
| 2× Nasdaq‑100 (QLD) | 34.3% | −63.7% | 33.2% | −40.2% | 83% |
| 3× Nasdaq‑100 (TQQQ) | 42.5% | −81.6% | 46.4% | −54.8% | 83% |
| Fund | Nasdaq‑100 (QQQ) | 2× Nasdaq‑100 (QLD) | 3× Nasdaq‑100 (TQQQ) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hold: a year | 21.4% | 34.3% | 42.5% |
| Hold: worst fall | −35.1% | −63.7% | −81.6% |
| 200‑day rule: a year | 19.2% | 33.2% | 46.4% |
| Rule: worst fall | −21.9% | −40.2% | −54.8% |
| Time invested | 83% | 83% | 83% |
With the rule, TQQQ returned 46.4% a year against 42.5% held, and QLD 33.2% against 34.3%. The rule switched 34 times and was invested 83% of the time; in a taxable account each exit is a taxable sale. It still lost 54.8% on TQQQ in the COVID crash, which was too fast for a 200‑day average. Details in TQQQ and the 200‑day moving average. FINRA Regulatory Notice 09‑31 warned that leveraged ETFs typically are unsuitable for retail investors who plan to hold them longer than one trading session.
Neither is better in general. From July 2016 to September 2026, TQQQ returned 44.1% a year against 35.0% for QLD, but its worst fall was 81.6% against 63.7%, in Exent’s data. Both are daily-reset trading tools.
QLD aims for twice the daily return of the Nasdaq-100 and TQQQ for three times. Both are issued by ProShares. QLD launched in 2006 and TQQQ in 2010.
TQQQ lost 79.0% in calendar 2022 and 81.6% from its November 2021 high to its December 2022 low. QLD lost 60.5% in calendar 2022 and QQQ 32.6%.
Over the last decade 3x returned more, about 9 points a year above 2x, but its worst fall was about 18 points deeper and its volatility about 50% higher. Which fits depends on the loss an investor can hold through.
Daily reset. The Nasdaq-100 swung sharply in 2018 and ended almost unchanged, and each swing cost the leveraged funds more on the way down than they made back on the way up. QLD lost 8.3% and TQQQ 19.7%.
In a hypothetical backtest from January 2017 to September 2026, holding TQQQ only while QQQ was above its 200-day average cut the worst fall from 81.6% to 54.8% and returned 46.4% a year against 42.5% held, before trading costs and taxes.
Market Intelligence reads the market regime and tells you whether the backdrop favors taking risk or protecting capital.
Educational content, not investment advice. Examples are illustrative; past performance does not guarantee future results.