Which came closer to its stated multiple, MIC or MUD?

Over the window to Sep 11, 2026, MIC finished 3.4 points from what its multiple implies and MUD finished 18.2 points from its own, so MIC came closer. Neither figure predicts the next window: it depends on how much the underlying moves about.

Are MIC and MUD levered on the same thing?

Yes. Both are levered on MU, MIC at +2 times and MUD at -1 times the daily move.

Which one decays faster, MIC or MUD?

Decay follows how much the underlying moves about. Over this window MIC’s moved at 53% annualized and MUD’s at 94%, so MUD has the rougher ride and, at the same multiple, loses more to compounding.

Can I hold MIC or MUD 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.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

Data as of Sep 11, 2026.

MIC vs MUD: which held to its multiple?

Over a month against its own daily promise, MIC finished 1.1 points short and MUD 0.6 points over.

Corgi MU 2x Daily ETF and Direxion Daily MU Bear 1X ETF, side by side, leveraged ETFs on ETFIQ.

−39.7%MIC returned, 3 months

−17.6%MUD returned, 3 months

−8.7 ptsMIC from its stated multiple

−18.2 ptsMUD from its stated multiple

MIC3.4 pts short of its label · 1 month to Sep 11, 2026

MUD18.2 pts short of its label · 3 months to Sep 11, 2026

Performance, window by window

MIC and MUD over each window. Every figure is an ETFIQ calculation with distributions reinvested. Source: ETFIQ.
Window	Total return		Multiple would give		Difference
Window	MIC	MUD	MIC	MUD	MIC	MUD
1 month	+10.7%	−8.1%	+14.0%	−7.0%	−3.4 pts	−1.1 pts
3 months	not published	−17.6%	not published	+0.6%	not published	−18.2 pts
6 months	not published	−71.2%	not published	not meaningful	not published	not meaningful
1 year	not published	−91.6%	not published	not meaningful	not published	not meaningful
Since launch	−39.7%	−95.5%	−31.0%	not meaningful	−8.7 pts	not meaningful

Open the live comparison on ETFIQ

MIC and MUD on the same fields, as of Sep 11, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
	MIC Corgi MU 2x Daily ETF Aims to return twice the daily move of MU	MUD Direxion Daily MU Bear 1X ETF Aims to return 1 times the opposite of the daily move of MU
Issuer	Corgi	Direxion
Sets out to return	+2x	-1x
On	MU	MU
Segment	company	company
Fund returned, 3 months	+10.7%	−17.6%
Underlying returned, 3 months	+7.0%	−0.6%
What the stated multiple implies, 3 months	+14.0%	+0.6%
Difference from stated, 3 months	−3.4 pts	−18.2 pts
Fund returned, 1 year or since launch	−39.7%	−91.6%
Difference from stated, over that window	−8.7 pts	not available
Underlying volatility	53%	94%
Difference over the days both have traded	+0.4 pts	no shared window
Expense ratio	0.45%	not published
Launched	Jun 30, 2026	Oct 10, 2024

MIC in plain words

One month to Sep 11, 2026: MIC returned +10.7% where its own daily promise gave +11.8%, 1.1 points short. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and +2 times MU's 7.0% implies +14.0%, which makes MIC look 3.4 points short. 2.3 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any +2 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. MIC aims to return +2 times MU'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. MU moved at 53% 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.

MUD in plain words

Three months to Sep 11, 2026: MUD returned −17.6% where its own daily promise gave −19.1%, 1.6 points over. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and −1 times MU's −0.6% implies +0.6%, which makes MUD look 18.2 points short. 19.8 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any −1 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. MUD aims to return -1 times MU's move each day, then resets. Over longer, the daily results compound, so the total is not -1 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. MU moved at 94% annualized over that window.

Questions people ask

Which came closer to its stated multiple, MIC or MUD?: Over the window to Sep 11, 2026, MIC finished 3.4 points from what its multiple implies and MUD finished 18.2 points from its own, so MIC came closer. Neither figure predicts the next window: it depends on how much the underlying moves about.
Are MIC and MUD levered on the same thing?: Yes. Both are levered on MU, MIC at +2 times and MUD at -1 times the daily move.
Which one decays faster, MIC or MUD?: Decay follows how much the underlying moves about. Over this window MIC’s moved at 53% annualized and MUD’s at 94%, so MUD has the rougher ride and, at the same multiple, loses more to compounding.
Can I hold MIC or MUD 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.

MIC against MUD, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 11, 2026. Every figure is arithmetic on a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, MIC against MUD, data as of Sep 11, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/MIC-MUD Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

How every figure is computed · Standards and sources