Core Insights - The ProShares Ultra QQQ ETF (QLD) and the Direxion Daily Semiconductor Bull 3X Shares (SOXL) provide leveraged exposure to technology stocks but have different strategies and risk profiles [1][2] Group 1: Cost and Size - QLD has an expense ratio of 0.95% and assets under management (AUM) of $10.6 billion, while SOXL has a lower expense ratio of 0.75% and AUM of $13.6 billion [3] - The one-year return for QLD is 24.95%, compared to SOXL's 44.62%, indicating SOXL's higher recent performance [3] - SOXL offers a higher dividend yield of 0.53% versus QLD's 0.18% [3] Group 2: Performance and Risk Comparison - Over five years, QLD has a maximum drawdown of -63.68%, while SOXL has a significantly higher drawdown of -90.46% [4] - An investment of $1,000 in QLD would grow to $2,591 over five years, whereas the same investment in SOXL would only grow to $1,491 [4] Group 3: Portfolio Composition - SOXL focuses exclusively on the semiconductor industry, holding around 40 stocks, with major positions in Broadcom, Nvidia, and Advanced Micro Devices [5] - QLD provides broader exposure, with 55% of its assets in technology stocks, 15% in communication services, and 13% in consumer cyclicals, featuring top holdings like Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft [6] Group 4: Investment Implications - SOXL is characterized by higher potential returns due to its 3x leverage on the semiconductor sector, which is known for its volatility [7][9] - QLD, with its 2x leverage and broader focus, presents a less risky option, appealing to investors seeking a more diversified approach [8][10]

Core Insights - The article compares two leveraged ETFs, ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) and ProShares UltraPro QQQ (TQQQ), focusing on their structure, risk profile, and performance for investors seeking Nasdaq-100 exposure [1][2]. Cost & Size - QLD has an expense ratio of 0.95% and TQQQ has a lower expense ratio of 0.82% - As of December 22, 2025, QLD's one-year return is 28.60% while TQQQ's is 30.72% - TQQQ offers a higher dividend yield of 0.72% compared to QLD's 0.18% - TQQQ has a larger assets under management (AUM) of $30.9 billion versus QLD's $10.6 billion [3]. Performance & Risk Comparison - Over the last five years, QLD experienced a maximum drawdown of -63.68%, while TQQQ faced a more severe drawdown of -81.65% - An investment of $1,000 would have grown to $2,564 with QLD and $2,500 with TQQQ over the same period [4]. Portfolio Composition - TQQQ holds 101 positions, with a focus on technology (55%), communication services (17%), and consumer cyclical (13%) - Major holdings in TQQQ include Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft [5]. Investment Strategy - Both QLD and TQQQ are designed for short-term investments due to their daily leverage reset mechanism, which can lead to significant divergence from the underlying index if held long-term [6][10]. - TQQQ's higher leverage factor aims for three times the daily return, making it potentially more lucrative but also riskier compared to QLD, which targets two times the daily return [8]. Recent Performance Trends - Despite TQQQ's higher risk profile, its 12-month returns have only marginally outperformed QLD, and it has underperformed QLD over the last five years [9].

Core Viewpoint - The ProShares Ultra QQQ ETF (QLD) is identified as a leveraged ETF that can enhance portfolio performance during positive momentum trends through tactical entries and a relatively short investment horizon of 3-6 months while closely monitoring the macroeconomic narrative [1] Summary by Relevant Categories Investment Strategy - The ETF is designed for tactical entries to capitalize on positive market momentum [1] - It is suitable for investors looking for short-term investment opportunities, typically within a 3-6 month timeframe [1] Market Monitoring - Investors are advised to closely monitor the macroeconomic narrative to make informed decisions regarding the ETF [1]

Core Viewpoint - The ProShares Ultra QQQ ETF (QLD) is identified as a leveraged ETF that can enhance portfolio performance during positive momentum trends through tactical entries and a relatively short investment horizon of 3-6 months while closely monitoring the macroeconomic narrative [1] Summary by Relevant Categories Investment Strategy - The ETF is designed for tactical entries to capitalize on positive market trends, suggesting a focus on short-term investment strategies [1] Performance Monitoring - Emphasis is placed on the importance of closely monitoring the macro narrative to inform investment decisions, indicating a strategic approach to market analysis [1]

Core Insights - The ProShares Ultra QQQ ETF (QLD) and ProShares Ultra S&P 500 ETF (SSO) both provide 2x daily leveraged exposure but differ in underlying index, sector concentration, and risk-return profile [1][2] Group 1: Cost and Size Comparison - SSO has a lower expense ratio of 0.87% compared to QLD's 0.95% [3] - As of December 1, 2025, SSO's one-year return is 18.32%, while QLD's is significantly higher at 32.48% [3] - SSO offers a higher dividend yield of 0.72% compared to QLD's 0.18% [3] - SSO has assets under management (AUM) of $7.7 billion, while QLD has $9.9 billion [3] Group 2: Performance and Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, SSO experienced a maximum drawdown of -46.73%, while QLD faced a more severe drawdown of -63.68% [4] - The growth of $1,000 over five years is $2,725 for SSO and $2,736 for QLD, indicating similar performance despite different risk profiles [4] Group 3: Portfolio Composition - QLD's portfolio is heavily concentrated in technology (55%), with significant allocations to Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft [5] - SSO's portfolio is also tech-heavy (35%) but offers broader sector diversification with 503 holdings [6] - Both funds reset their daily leverage, which can lead to divergence in long-term returns, especially in volatile markets [6] Group 4: Risk Profile - QLD is identified as the more volatile option, with a higher beta of 2.22 compared to SSO's 2.02, indicating greater price fluctuations [3][9] - SSO provides more diversification and has experienced less volatility in recent years, although it has lower one-year returns compared to QLD [10][11]