Get the weekly note
ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

Data as of .

TMF vs UBT: which held to its multiple?

Over three months against its own daily promise, TMF finished 2.0 points short and UBT 0.5 points short.

Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF and ProShares Ultra 20+ Year Treasury, side by side, leveraged ETFs on ETFIQ.

−15.8%TMF returned, 3 months
−9.7%UBT returned, 3 months
−1.9 ptsTMF from its stated multiple
−0.5 ptsUBT from its stated multiple

ETFIQ Decay Resistance Score: UBT scores higher

Did it keep up with its own daily multiple, compounded day by day?

TMF 71.5UBT 98.30.1, the lowest in this set99.9, the highest

A percentile among the 391 leveraged ETFs, long, over three months. It is a position in a set, not a rating, and neither end of it is a recommendation. All leveraged ETFs ranked by it · How it is computed

TMF1.9 pts short of its label · 3 months to Sep 11, 2026
TLT −4.6% ×3 implies−13.9%TMF returned−15.8%TLT −4.6% ×3 implies−13.9%TMF returned−15.8%
UBTOn its stated multiple · 3 months to Sep 11, 2026
TLT −4.6% ×2 implies−9.2%UBT returned−9.7%TLT −4.6% ×2 implies−9.2%UBT returned−9.7%

Performance, window by window

TMF and UBT over each window. Every figure is an ETFIQ calculation with distributions reinvested. Source: ETFIQ.
WindowTotal returnMultiple would giveDifference
TMFUBTTMFUBTTMFUBT
1 month−4.6%−2.4%−3.4%−2.3%−1.2 pts−0.2 pts
3 months−15.8%−9.7%−13.9%−9.2%−1.9 pts−0.5 pts
6 months−18.1%−10.6%−13.1%−8.7%−5.1 pts−1.9 pts
1 year−27.8%−16.5%−19.1%−12.7%−8.6 pts−3.8 pts
3 years−44.9%−22.8%−7.7%−5.1%−37.2 pts−17.6 pts
Since launch−52.0%+0.3%+141.5%+86.8%−193.5 pts−86.6 pts
Open the live comparison on ETFIQ
TMF and UBT on the same fields, as of Sep 11, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
TMF
Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF
Aims to return three times the daily move of 20-year Treasuries (TLT)
UBT
ProShares Ultra 20+ Year Treasury
Aims to return twice the daily move of 20-year Treasuries (TLT)
IssuerDirexionProShares
Sets out to return+3x+2x
OnTLTTLT
Segmentbondbond
Fund returned, 3 months−15.8%−9.7%
Underlying returned, 3 months−4.6%−4.6%
What the stated multiple implies, 3 months−13.9%−9.2%
Difference from stated, 3 months−1.9 pts−0.5 pts
Fund returned, 1 year or since launch−27.8%−16.5%
Difference from stated, over that window−8.6 pts−3.8 pts
Underlying volatility9%9%
Expense ratio0.90%0.95%
LaunchedJan 4, 2010Jan 21, 2010

TMF in plain words

Three months to Sep 11, 2026: TMF returned −15.8% where its own daily promise gave −13.8%, 2.0 points short. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and +3 times TLT's −4.6% implies −13.9%, which makes TMF look 1.9 points short. 0.1 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any +3 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. TMF aims to return +3 times TLT'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. TLT moved at 9% 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.

UBT in plain words

Three months to Sep 11, 2026: UBT returned −9.7% where its own daily promise gave −9.2%, 0.5 points short. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and +2 times TLT's −4.6% implies −9.2%, which makes UBT look 0.5 points short. 0.0 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any +2 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. UBT aims to return +2 times TLT's move each day, then resets. 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.

Questions people ask

Which came closer to its stated multiple, TMF or UBT?
Over the window to Sep 11, 2026, TMF finished 1.9 points from what its multiple implies and UBT finished 0.5 points from its own, so UBT came closer. Neither figure predicts the next window: it depends on how much the underlying moves about.
Are TMF and UBT levered on the same thing?
Yes. Both are levered on 20-year Treasuries, TMF at +3 times and UBT at +2 times the daily move.
Which one decays faster, TMF or UBT?
Decay follows how much the underlying moves about. Over this window TMF’s moved at 9% annualized and UBT’s at 9%, so TMF has the rougher ride and, at the same multiple, loses more to compounding.
Can I hold TMF or UBT 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, TMF or UBT?
TMF charges 0.90% a year and UBT charges 0.95%, so TMF is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.

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.

TMF against UBT, 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, TMF against UBT, data as of Sep 11, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/TMF-UBT Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

How every figure is computed · Standards and sources