FIELD NOTE 01
QQQ vs TQQQ: Historical Performance, Drawdowns, and the Cost of Leverage
A larger ending value does not answer whether two investments carried comparable risk. This note normalizes QQQ and TQQQ to the same starting capital, then reads compounding beside peak-to-trough loss.
- Read
- 8 minutes
- Data window
- Adjusted daily closes from 2015-01-02 through 2026-07-17
- Byline
- MoreMoneyQuant Research
THE SHORT ANSWER
In this historical window, TQQQ compounded faster but experienced a maximum drawdown of about 81.7%, versus 35.1% for QQQ. The outcome reflects a favorable long-run path and daily leverage—not a promise that TQQQ will deliver three times QQQ over another period.
QQQ ending multiple
7.35×
Normalized from the same $100,000 starting value
TQQQ ending multiple
35.27×
Same dates and starting value; before investor-specific taxes
Maximum drawdown gap
46.5 pp
TQQQ −81.7% versus QQQ −35.1%
01 / COMPARISON DESIGN
The comparison uses one clock and one starting line
Both series begin at 100,000 on 2015-01-02 and use adjusted daily closes through 2026-07-17. Matching the dates matters: a leveraged result can change sharply when a study begins immediately before or after a volatile period.
QQQ is treated as the unleveraged Nasdaq-100 reference. TQQQ is treated as a daily 3x leveraged fund, not as a static three-times position. The comparison describes this completed sample only.
- Same initial value and aligned U.S. trading dates
- Adjusted closes used consistently across both series
- No intraday execution, investor taxes, or personalized portfolio assumptions
02 / OBSERVED RESULTS
Return acceleration came with a much deeper loss path
TQQQ finished the sample with the larger normalized value and a higher annualized return. That single result can hide the central risk: at its worst point, the leveraged series had lost more than four-fifths of its prior peak.
A loss of 81.7% requires a gain of roughly 445% from the trough merely to regain the previous peak. A loss of 35.1% requires roughly 54%. Drawdown depth therefore changes both the mathematical and behavioral burden of recovery.
| Measure | QQQ | TQQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Annualized return | 18.9% | 36.2% |
| Ending multiple | 7.35× | 35.27× |
| Maximum drawdown | −35.1% | −81.7% |
| 2022 calendar return | −33.2% | −79.7% |
03 / PATH DEPENDENCY
Three times each day is not three times the final period
TQQQ seeks a multiple of the Nasdaq-100’s daily result before fees and expenses. Each day starts from a new base. Over many days, gains and losses multiply in sequence, so volatility and the order of returns affect the ending value.
A persistent upward path can make daily leverage compound strongly. A volatile sideways or falling path can erode value much faster. That is why the long-run ratio between the two ending values is not fixed at three.
04 / INTERPRETATION
Read the result as a risk study, not a product ranking
The sample shows what happened across a particular technology-led market period. It does not establish that the same ranking, return, or recovery will repeat. A different start date, higher volatility, financing cost, tax treatment, or market regime can materially change the comparison.
Use the interactive reports to inspect the full curve and the methodology page to review how returns and drawdowns are calculated. This material is historical education and is not investment advice.
- 01Invesco QQQ fund descriptionInvesco
- 02TQQQ summary prospectusProShares
- 03Updated bulletin on leveraged and inverse ETFsU.S. SEC Investor.gov
CONTINUE THE TOPIC
Related research
Historical observations and illustrations are provided for research education. They are not investment advice, personalized recommendations, or guarantees of future results.