Data as of .
MCHG vs MCHU: which held to its multiple?
Over the days both have traded, MCHG finished 1.6 points from its stated multiple and MCHU 0.9.
Performance, window by window
| Window | Total return | Multiple would give | Difference | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCHG | MCHU | MCHG | MCHU | MCHG | MCHU | |
| 1 month | −13.6% | −12.9% | −12.0% | −12.0% | −1.6 pts | −0.9 pts |
| 3 months | not published | −45.0% | not published | −43.2% | not published | −1.7 pts |
| Since launch | −45.9% | −47.0% | −43.9% | −44.5% | −2.1 pts | −2.5 pts |
| MCHG Leverage Shares 2X Long MCHP Daily ETF Aims to return twice the daily move of MCHP | MCHU Tradr 2X Long MCHP Daily ETF Aims to return twice the daily move of MCHP | |
|---|---|---|
| Issuer | Leverage Shares | Tradr |
| Sets out to return | +2x | +2x |
| On | MCHP | MCHP |
| Segment | company | company |
| Fund returned, 3 months | −13.6% | −45.0% |
| Underlying returned, 3 months | −6.0% | −21.6% |
| What the stated multiple implies, 3 months | −12.0% | −43.2% |
| Difference from stated, 3 months | −1.6 pts | −1.7 pts |
| Fund returned, 1 year or since launch | −45.9% | −47.0% |
| Difference from stated, over that window | −2.1 pts | −2.5 pts |
| Underlying volatility | 30% | 59% |
| Difference over the days both have traded | −1.6 pts | −0.9 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.99% | 1.30% |
| Launched | Jun 16, 2026 | May 28, 2026 |
MCHG in plain words
One month to Sep 11, 2026: MCHG returned −13.6% where its own daily promise gave −12.3%, 1.2 points short. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and +2 times MCHP's −6.0% implies −12.0%, which makes MCHG look 1.6 points short. 0.3 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any +2 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. MCHG aims to return +2 times MCHP'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. MCHP moved at 30% 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.
MCHU in plain words
Three months to Sep 11, 2026: MCHU returned −45.0% where its own daily promise gave −43.5%, 1.4 points short. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and +2 times MCHP's −21.6% implies −43.2%, which makes MCHU look 1.7 points short. MCHU aims to return +2 times MCHP's move each day, then resets. MCHP moved at 59% annualized over that window.
Questions people ask
- Which came closer to its stated multiple, MCHG or MCHU?
- Over the window to Sep 11, 2026, MCHG finished 1.6 points from what its multiple implies and MCHU finished 1.7 points from its own, so MCHG came closer. Neither figure predicts the next window: it depends on how much the underlying moves about.
- Are MCHG and MCHU levered on the same thing?
- Yes. Both are levered on MCHP, MCHG at +2 times and MCHU at +2 times the daily move.
- Which one decays faster, MCHG or MCHU?
- Decay follows how much the underlying moves about. Over this window MCHG’s moved at 30% annualized and MCHU’s at 59%, so MCHU has the rougher ride and, at the same multiple, loses more to compounding.
- Can I hold MCHG or MCHU 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.
- Which is cheaper, MCHG or MCHU?
- MCHG charges 0.99% a year and MCHU charges 1.30%, so MCHG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
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, MCHG against MCHU, data as of Sep 11, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/MCHG-MCHU Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.