Data as of .
ORAC vs ORCX: which held to its multiple?
Over the days both have traded, ORAC finished 1.4 points from its stated multiple and ORCX 2.8.
Performance, window by window
| Window | Total return | Multiple would give | Difference | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ORAC | ORCX | ORAC | ORCX | ORAC | ORCX | |
| 1 month | −5.3% | −6.7% | −3.9% | −3.9% | −1.4 pts | −2.8 pts |
| 3 months | not published | −40.0% | not published | −36.2% | not published | −3.9 pts |
| 6 months | not published | −25.8% | not published | −4.8% | not published | −21.0 pts |
| 1 year | not published | −84.8% | not published | −101.3% | not published | +16.5 pts |
| Since launch | −3.0% | −63.7% | +5.8% | −24.7% | −8.8 pts | −39.0 pts |
| ORAC Corgi ORCL 2x Daily ETF Aims to return twice the daily move of ORCL | ORCX Defiance Daily Target 2X Long ORCL ETF Aims to return twice the daily move of ORCL | |
|---|---|---|
| Issuer | Corgi | Defiance |
| Sets out to return | +2x | +2x |
| On | ORCL | ORCL |
| Segment | company | company |
| Fund returned, 3 months | −5.3% | −40.0% |
| Underlying returned, 3 months | −2.0% | −18.1% |
| What the stated multiple implies, 3 months | −3.9% | −36.2% |
| Difference from stated, 3 months | −1.4 pts | −3.9 pts |
| Fund returned, 1 year or since launch | −3.0% | −84.8% |
| Difference from stated, over that window | −8.8 pts | +16.5 pts |
| Underlying volatility | 47% | 56% |
| Difference over the days both have traded | −1.4 pts | −2.8 pts |
| Expense ratio | not published | 1.31% |
| Launched | Jun 30, 2026 | Feb 7, 2025 |
ORAC in plain words
One month to Sep 11, 2026: ORAC returned −5.3% where its own daily promise gave −5.7%, 0.3 points over. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and +2 times ORCL's −2.0% implies −3.9%, which makes ORAC look 1.4 points short. 1.7 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any +2 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. ORAC aims to return +2 times ORCL'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. ORCL moved at 47% 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.
ORCX in plain words
Three months to Sep 11, 2026: ORCX returned −40.0% where its own daily promise gave −37.9%, 2.2 points short. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and +2 times ORCL's −18.1% implies −36.2%, which makes ORCX look 3.9 points short. ORCX aims to return +2 times ORCL's move each day, then resets. ORCL moved at 56% annualized over that window.
Questions people ask
- Which came closer to its stated multiple, ORAC or ORCX?
- Over the window to Sep 11, 2026, ORAC finished 1.4 points from what its multiple implies and ORCX finished 3.9 points from its own, so ORAC came closer. Neither figure predicts the next window: it depends on how much the underlying moves about.
- Are ORAC and ORCX levered on the same thing?
- Yes. Both are levered on ORCL, ORAC at +2 times and ORCX at +2 times the daily move.
- Which one decays faster, ORAC or ORCX?
- Decay follows how much the underlying moves about. Over this window ORAC’s moved at 47% annualized and ORCX’s at 56%, so ORCX has the rougher ride and, at the same multiple, loses more to compounding.
- Can I hold ORAC or ORCX 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, ORAC against ORCX, data as of Sep 11, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/ORAC-ORCX Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.