Data as of .
LQDD vs LQDU: which held to its multiple?
Over a month against its own daily promise, LQDD finished 0.4 points over and LQDU 1.4 points short.
Performance, window by window
| Window | Total return | Multiple would give | Difference | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LQDD | LQDU | LQDD | LQDU | LQDD | LQDU | |
| 1 month | +4.1% | −5.3% | +3.8% | −3.8% | +0.3 pts | −1.5 pts |
| Since launch | +3.8% | −5.1% | +3.5% | −3.5% | +0.3 pts | −1.6 pts |
| LQDD MicroSectors -3x Short Investment Grade Corporate Bond (LQD) ETNs Aims to return three times the opposite of the daily move of investment-grade bonds (LQD) | LQDU MicroSectors 3x Long Investment Grade Corporate Bond (LQD) ETNs Aims to return three times the daily move of investment-grade bonds (LQD) | |
|---|---|---|
| Issuer | MicroSectors | MicroSectors |
| Sets out to return | -3x | +3x |
| On | LQD | LQD |
| Segment | index | index |
| Fund returned, 3 months | +4.1% | −5.3% |
| Underlying returned, 3 months | −1.3% | −1.3% |
| What the stated multiple implies, 3 months | +3.8% | −3.8% |
| Difference from stated, 3 months | +0.3 pts | −1.5 pts |
| Fund returned, 1 year or since launch | +3.8% | −5.1% |
| Difference from stated, over that window | +0.3 pts | −1.6 pts |
| Underlying volatility | 6% | 6% |
| Expense ratio | not published | not published |
| Launched | Aug 11, 2026 | Aug 11, 2026 |
LQDD in plain words
One month to Sep 11, 2026: LQDD returned +4.1% where its own daily promise gave +3.8%, 0.4 points over. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and −3 times LQD's −1.3% implies +3.8%, which makes LQDD look 0.3 points over. 0.1 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any −3 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. LQDD aims to return -3 times LQD's move each day, then resets. Over one day it does that. Over longer, the daily results compound, so the total is not -3 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. LQD moved at 6% 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.
LQDU in plain words
One month to Sep 11, 2026: LQDU returned −5.3% where its own daily promise gave −3.9%, 1.4 points short. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and +3 times LQD's −1.3% implies −3.8%, which makes LQDU look 1.5 points short. 0.0 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any +3 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. LQDU aims to return +3 times LQD's move each day, then resets. Over longer, the daily results compound, so the total is not +3 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.
Questions people ask
- Which came closer to its stated multiple, LQDD or LQDU?
- Over the window to Sep 11, 2026, LQDD finished 0.3 points from what its multiple implies and LQDU finished 1.5 points from its own, so LQDD came closer. Neither figure predicts the next window: it depends on how much the underlying moves about.
- Are LQDD and LQDU levered on the same thing?
- Yes. Both are levered on investment-grade bonds, LQDD at -3 times and LQDU at +3 times the daily move.
- Which one decays faster, LQDD or LQDU?
- Decay follows how much the underlying moves about. Over this window LQDD’s moved at 6% annualized and LQDU’s at 6%, so LQDD has the rougher ride and, at the same multiple, loses more to compounding.
- Can I hold LQDD or LQDU 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, LQDD against LQDU, data as of Sep 11, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/LQDD-LQDU Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.