DULL vs GLL: which held to its multiple?

Over three months against its own daily promise, DULL finished 1.2 points over and GLL 3.0 points over. MicroSectors Gold -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs due January 29, 2043 and ProShares UltraShort Gold.

−14.8%
DULL returned, 3 months
−6.6%
GLL returned, 3 months
−6.5 pts
DULL from its stated multiple
−1.0 pts
GLL from its stated multiple
DULL · 3 months to Sep 30, 20266.5 pts short of its stated multiple
6.5 pts short of its stated multipleDULL returned −14.8% while −3 times GLD's move would have been −8.3%GLD +2.8% ×−3 implies−8.3%DULL returned−14.8%6.5 pts short of its stated multipleDULL returned −14.8% while −3 times GLD's move would have been −8.3%GLD +2.8% ×−3 implies−8.3%DULL returned−14.8%

DULL returned −14.8% while −3 times GLD's move would have been −8.3%

GLL · 3 months to Sep 30, 20261 pt short of its stated multiple
1 pt short of its stated multipleGLL returned −6.6% while −2 times GLD's move would have been −5.5%GLD +2.8% ×−2 implies−5.5%GLL returned−6.6%1 pt short of its stated multipleGLL returned −6.6% while −2 times GLD's move would have been −5.5%GLD +2.8% ×−2 implies−5.5%GLL returned−6.6%

GLL returned −6.6% while −2 times GLD's move would have been −5.5%

ETFIQ Decay Resistance Score · GLL scores higherDid it keep up with its own daily multiple, compounded day by day?
0.4, the lowest in this set99.6, the highest

A percentile among the 125 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

Total returnMultiple would giveDifference
WindowDULLGLLDULLGLLDULLGLL
1 month+20.3%+14.6%+20.3%+13.5%0.0 pts+1.1 pts
3 months−14.8%−6.6%−8.3%−5.5%−6.5 pts−1.0 pts
6 months+31.4%+27.9%+39.0%+26.0%−7.7 pts+1.9 pts
1 year−48.5%−25.1%−21.4%−14.3%−27.1 pts−10.8 pts
3 years−94.8%−80.6%not meaningfulnot meaningfulnot meaningfulnot meaningful
Since launch
DULL Feb 2023 · GLL Jan 2010
−94.9%−96.8%not meaningfulnot meaningfulnot meaningfulnot meaningful

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

On the same fields

DULL
MicroSectors Gold -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs due January 29, 2043 · Aims to return three times the opposite of the daily move of gold (GLD)
GLL
ProShares UltraShort Gold · Aims to return twice the opposite of the daily move of gold (GLD)
Issuer MicroSectors ProShares
Sets out to return -3x -2x
Underlying asset GLD GLD
Segment index metal
Fund returned, 3 months or since launch −14.8% −6.6%
Underlying returned, over that window +2.8% +2.8%
What the stated multiple implies, over that window −8.3% −5.5%
Difference from stated, over that window −6.5 pts −1.0 pts
Fund returned, 1 year or since launch −48.5% −25.1%
Difference from stated, over that window −27.1 pts −10.8 pts
Underlying volatility 25% 25%
Expense ratio not published 0.95%
Launched Feb 22, 2023 Jan 4, 2010
Net assets not published $108m

DULL and GLL on the same fields, as of Sep 30, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.

DULL in plain words

Three months to Sep 30, 2026: DULL returned −14.8% where its own daily promise gave −15.9%, 1.2 points over. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and −3 times GLD's 2.8% implies −8.3%, which makes DULL look 6.5 points short. 7.6 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any −3 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. DULL aims to return -3 times GLD'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. GLD moved at 25% 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.

GLL in plain words

Three months to Sep 30, 2026: GLL returned −6.6% where its own daily promise gave −9.5%, 3.0 points over. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and −2 times GLD's 2.8% implies −5.5%, which makes GLL look 1.0 points short. 4.0 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any −2 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. GLL aims to return -2 times GLD'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, DULL or GLL?
Over the window to Sep 30, 2026, DULL finished 6.5 points from what its multiple implies and GLL finished 1.0 points from its own, so GLL came closer. Neither figure predicts the next window: it depends on how much the underlying moves about.
Are DULL and GLL levered on the same thing?
Yes. Both are levered on gold, DULL at -3 times and GLL at -2 times the daily move.
Which one decays faster, DULL or GLL?
Decay follows how much the underlying moves about. Over this window DULL’s moved at 25% annualized and GLL’s at 25%, so DULL has the rougher ride and, at the same multiple, loses more to compounding.
Can I hold DULL or GLL 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. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page

ETFIQ, DULL against GLL, data as of Sep 30, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/dull-vs-gll

Open data

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