ETFIQ
RankingsCompareHoldingsResearch
My portfolioWeekly note
A
vs
B
Share on XDownload as PDFOpen live

DRAL vs RAM: which held to its multiple?

Over the days both have traded, DRAL finished 3.7 points from its stated multiple and RAM 3.4. Defiance Daily Target 2X Long DRAM ETF and Roundhill Daily 2X Long Memory ETF.

−32.5%
DRAL returned, 3 months
−32.1%
RAM returned, 3 months
−15.8 pts
DRAL from its stated multiple
−15.4 pts
RAM from its stated multiple
DRAL · 3 months to Sep 30, 202615.8 pts short of its stated multiple
15.8 pts short of its stated multipleDRAL returned −32.5% while 2 times DRAM's move would have been −16.7%DRAM −8.3% ×2 implies−16.7%DRAL returned−32.5%15.8 pts short of its stated multipleDRAL returned −32.5% while 2 times DRAM's move would have been −16.7%DRAM −8.3% ×2 implies−16.7%DRAL returned−32.5%

DRAL returned −32.5% while 2 times DRAM's move would have been −16.7%

RAM · 3 months to Sep 30, 202615.4 pts short of its stated multiple
15.4 pts short of its stated multipleRAM returned −32.1% while 2 times DRAM's move would have been −16.7%DRAM −8.3% ×2 implies−16.7%RAM returned−32.1%15.4 pts short of its stated multipleRAM returned −32.1% while 2 times DRAM's move would have been −16.7%DRAM −8.3% ×2 implies−16.7%RAM returned−32.1%

RAM returned −32.1% while 2 times DRAM's move would have been −16.7%

ETFIQ Decay Resistance Score · RAM scores higherDid it keep up with its own daily multiple, compounded day by day?
0.1, the lowest in this set99.9, the highest

A percentile among the 470 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 →

Performance, window by window

Total returnMultiple would giveDifference
WindowDRALRAMDRALRAMDRALRAM
1 month+8.4%+8.8%+12.2%+12.2%−3.7 pts−3.4 pts
3 months−32.5%−32.1%−16.7%−16.7%−15.8 pts−15.4 pts
Since launch
DRAL Jun 2026 · RAM Jun 2026
−44.1%−42.2%−32.2%−27.4%−11.9 pts−14.9 pts

DRAL and RAM over each window. Every figure is an ETFIQ calculation with distributions reinvested. Source: ETFIQ. Open the live comparison on ETFIQ →

On the same fields

DRAL
Defiance Daily Target 2X Long DRAM ETF · Aims to return twice the daily move of Roundhill Memory ETF (DRAM)
RAM
Roundhill Daily 2X Long Memory ETF · Aims to return twice the daily move of Roundhill Memory ETF (DRAM)
Issuer Defiance Roundhill
Sets out to return +2x +2x
Underlying asset DRAM DRAM
Segment sector sector
Fund returned, 3 months or since launch −32.5% −32.1%
Underlying returned, over that window −8.3% −8.3%
What the stated multiple implies, over that window −16.7% −16.7%
Difference from stated, over that window −15.8 pts −15.4 pts
Fund returned, 1 year or since launch −44.1% −42.2%
Difference from stated, over that window −11.9 pts −14.9 pts
Underlying volatility 80% 80%
Difference over the days both have traded −3.7 pts −3.4 pts
Expense ratio 1.31% 0.99%
Launched Jun 29, 2026 Jun 24, 2026
Net assets $17m not published

DRAL and RAM on the same fields, as of Sep 30, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.

DRAL in plain words

Three months to Sep 30, 2026: DRAL returned −32.5% where its own daily promise gave −28.5%, 4.1 points short. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and 2 times DRAM's −8.3% implies −16.7%, which makes DRAL look 15.8 points short. 11.8 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any 2 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. DRAL aims to return +2 times DRAM'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. DRAM moved at 80% 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.

RAM in plain words

Three months to Sep 30, 2026: RAM returned −32.1% where its own daily promise gave −28.5%, 3.6 points short. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and 2 times DRAM's −8.3% implies −16.7%, which makes RAM look 15.4 points short. RAM aims to return +2 times DRAM's move each day, then resets.

Questions people ask

Which came closer to its stated multiple, DRAL or RAM?
Over the window to Sep 30, 2026, DRAL finished 15.8 points from what its multiple implies and RAM finished 15.4 points from its own, so RAM came closer. Neither figure predicts the next window: it depends on how much the underlying moves about.
Are DRAL and RAM levered on the same thing?
Yes. Both are levered on Roundhill Memory ETF, DRAL at +2 times and RAM at +2 times the daily move.
Which one decays faster, DRAL or RAM?
Decay follows how much the underlying moves about. Over this window DRAL’s moved at 80% annualized and RAM’s at 80%, so DRAL has the rougher ride and, at the same multiple, loses more to compounding.
Can I hold DRAL or RAM 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, DRAL or RAM?
DRAL charges 1.31% a year and RAM charges 0.99%, so RAM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Other comparisons
DRAL vs RAMLDRAL vs RAMZRAM vs RAMLRAM vs RAMZ
DRAM →DRAL on its own →RAM on its own →How every figure is computed →Standards and sources →
Where these figures came from
DRAL filings on SEC EDGAR ↗DRAL prospectus with the expense ratio (SEC) ↗Defiance page for DRAL ↗RAM filings on SEC EDGAR ↗RAM prospectus with the expense ratio (SEC) ↗Roundhill page for RAM ↗

ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page

ETFIQ, DRAL against RAM, data as of Sep 30, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/dral-vs-ram

Open data

Free to use with attribution. Every figure is calculated from a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology.