Data as of .
BEC vs BEG: which held to its multiple?
Over the days both have traded, BEC finished 7.4 points from its stated multiple and BEG 5.0.
Performance, window by window
| Window | Total return | Multiple would give | Difference | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BEC | BEG | BEC | BEG | BEC | BEG | |
| 1 month | +25.1% | +27.6% | +32.5% | +32.5% | −7.4 pts | −5.0 pts |
| 3 months | not published | −24.6% | not published | +11.9% | not published | −36.5 pts |
| 6 months | not published | +56.8% | not published | +156.9% | not published | −100.1 pts |
| Since launch | −38.1% | +264.8% | −17.8% | not meaningful | −20.3 pts | not meaningful |
| BEC Corgi BE 2x Daily ETF Aims to return twice the daily move of BE | BEG Leverage Shares 2X Long BE Daily ETF Aims to return twice the daily move of BE | |
|---|---|---|
| Issuer | Corgi | Leverage Shares |
| Sets out to return | +2x | +2x |
| On | BE | BE |
| Segment | company | company |
| Fund returned, 3 months | +25.1% | −24.6% |
| Underlying returned, 3 months | +16.3% | +6.0% |
| What the stated multiple implies, 3 months | +32.5% | +11.9% |
| Difference from stated, 3 months | −7.4 pts | −36.5 pts |
| Fund returned, 1 year or since launch | −38.1% | +264.8% |
| Difference from stated, over that window | −20.3 pts | not available |
| Underlying volatility | 74% | 119% |
| Difference over the days both have traded | −7.4 pts | −5.0 pts |
| Expense ratio | not published | 0.75% |
| Launched | Jun 30, 2026 | Dec 16, 2025 |
BEC in plain words
One month to Sep 11, 2026: BEC returned +25.1% where its own daily promise gave +29.1%, 4.0 points short. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and +2 times BE's 16.3% implies +32.5%, which makes BEC look 7.4 points short. 3.4 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any +2 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. BEC aims to return +2 times BE's move each day, then resets. Over one day it does that. Over longer, the daily results compound, so the total is not +2 times the period's move: in a market that falls and comes back it is reliably less, and in a steady run it can be more. BE moved at 74% annualized over that window. That is what decides how far the two figures separate: the same fund on a calm underlying and a violent one is a different product.
BEG in plain words
Three months to Sep 11, 2026: BEG returned −24.6% where its own daily promise gave −20.7%, 3.8 points short. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and +2 times BE's 6.0% implies +11.9%, which makes BEG look 36.5 points short. 32.7 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any +2 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. BEG aims to return +2 times BE's move each day, then resets. BE moved at 119% annualized over that window.
Questions people ask
- Which came closer to its stated multiple, BEC or BEG?
- Over the window to Sep 11, 2026, BEC finished 7.4 points from what its multiple implies and BEG finished 36.5 points from its own, so BEC came closer. Neither figure predicts the next window: it depends on how much the underlying moves about.
- Are BEC and BEG levered on the same thing?
- Yes. Both are levered on BE, BEC at +2 times and BEG at +2 times the daily move.
- Which one decays faster, BEC or BEG?
- Decay follows how much the underlying moves about. Over this window BEC’s moved at 74% annualized and BEG’s at 119%, so BEG has the rougher ride and, at the same multiple, loses more to compounding.
- Can I hold BEC or BEG for a year?
- Both reset every day, so the multiple in the name applies to a single day and the daily results compound. Over a year the total is not the multiple times the year’s move, and in a market that falls and comes back it is reliably less. ETFIQ makes no recommendation either way.
Other comparisons
Where these figures came from
ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, BEC against BEG, data as of Sep 11, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/BEC-BEG Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.