Data as of .
TZA vs UWM: which held to its multiple?
Over three months against its own daily promise, TZA finished 3.5 points over and UWM 1.3 points short.
ETFIQ Decay Resistance Score: TZA scores higher
Did it keep up with its own daily multiple, compounded day by day?
A percentile among the 121 inverse ETFs 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
Performance, window by window
| Window | Total return | Multiple would give | Difference | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TZA | UWM | TZA | UWM | TZA | UWM | |
| 1 month | +15.5% | −9.5% | +13.7% | −9.1% | +1.8 pts | −0.4 pts |
| 3 months | +4.2% | −4.1% | +3.5% | −2.3% | +0.7 pts | −1.8 pts |
| 6 months | −40.7% | +32.6% | −52.9% | +35.3% | +12.2 pts | −2.6 pts |
| 1 year | −47.7% | +34.6% | −63.7% | +42.4% | +16.0 pts | −7.8 pts |
| 3 years | −82.8% | +92.3% | −187.6% | +125.1% | +104.8 pts | −32.7 pts |
| Since launch | −100.0% | +767.3% | not meaningful | not meaningful | not meaningful | not meaningful |
| TZA Direxion Daily Small Cap Bear 3X ETF Aims to return three times the opposite of the daily move of the Russell 2000 | UWM ProShares Ultra Russell2000 Aims to return twice the daily move of the Russell 2000 | |
|---|---|---|
| Issuer | Direxion | ProShares |
| Sets out to return | -3x | +2x |
| On | IWM | IWM |
| Segment | us small cap | us small cap |
| Fund returned, 3 months | +4.2% | −4.1% |
| Underlying returned, 3 months | −1.1% | −1.1% |
| What the stated multiple implies, 3 months | +3.5% | −2.3% |
| Difference from stated, 3 months | +0.7 pts | −1.8 pts |
| Fund returned, 1 year or since launch | −47.7% | +34.6% |
| Difference from stated, over that window | +16.0 pts | −7.8 pts |
| Underlying volatility | 14% | 14% |
| Difference over the days both have traded | +0.7 pts | no shared window |
| Expense ratio | 0.99% | 0.95% |
| Launched | Jan 4, 2010 | Jan 4, 2010 |
TZA in plain words
Three months to Sep 11, 2026: TZA returned +4.2% where its own daily promise gave +0.7%, 3.5 points over. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and −3 times IWM's −1.1% implies +3.5%, which makes TZA look 0.7 points over. 2.7 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any −3 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. TZA aims to return -3 times IWM'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. IWM moved at 14% 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.
UWM in plain words
Three months to Sep 11, 2026: UWM returned −4.1% where its own daily promise gave −2.7%, 1.3 points short. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and +2 times IWM's −1.1% implies −2.3%, which makes UWM look 1.8 points short. 0.4 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any +2 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. UWM aims to return +2 times IWM'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, TZA or UWM?
- Over the window to Sep 11, 2026, TZA finished 0.7 points from what its multiple implies and UWM finished 1.8 points from its own, so TZA came closer. Neither figure predicts the next window: it depends on how much the underlying moves about.
- Are TZA and UWM levered on the same thing?
- Yes. Both are levered on the Russell 2000, TZA at -3 times and UWM at +2 times the daily move.
- Which one decays faster, TZA or UWM?
- Decay follows how much the underlying moves about. Over this window TZA’s moved at 14% annualized and UWM’s at 14%, so TZA has the rougher ride and, at the same multiple, loses more to compounding.
- Can I hold TZA or UWM 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, TZA or UWM?
- TZA charges 0.99% a year and UWM charges 0.95%, so UWM 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, TZA against UWM, data as of Sep 11, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/TZA-UWM Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.