FBL vs METD: which held to its multiple?
Over three months against its own daily promise, FBL finished 3.1 points short and METD 1.2 points over. GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF and Direxion Daily META Bear 1X ETF.
FBL returned +29.1% while 2 times META's move would have been +36.8%
METD returned −19.3% while −1 times META's move would have been −18.4%
FBL among the 470 leveraged ETFs, long, over three months
METD among the 125 inverse ETFs over three months
A percentile among the 470 leveraged ETFs, long, over three months. METD is a percentile among the 125 inverse ETFs over three months, a different set, so the two marks are not on one scale. 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 return | Multiple would give | Difference | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Window | FBL | METD | FBL | METD | FBL | METD |
| 1 month | +55.5% | −23.0% | +53.6% | −26.8% | +1.9 pts | +3.8 pts |
| 3 months | +29.1% | −19.3% | +36.8% | −18.4% | −7.7 pts | −0.9 pts |
| 6 months | +35.2% | −25.9% | +50.8% | −25.4% | −15.6 pts | −0.5 pts |
| 1 year | −25.3% | −9.7% | −1.9% | +0.9% | −23.4 pts | −10.7 pts |
| 3 years | +159.8% | not published | not meaningful | not published | not meaningful | not published |
| Since launch FBL Dec 2022 · METD Jun 2024 | +811.7% | −42.9% | not meaningful | −47.7% | not meaningful | +4.8 pts |
FBL and METD over each window. Every figure is an ETFIQ calculation with distributions reinvested. Source: ETFIQ. Open the live comparison on ETFIQ →
On the same fields
FBL and METD on the same fields, as of Sep 30, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
FBL in plain words
Three months to Sep 30, 2026: FBL returned +29.1% where its own daily promise gave +32.2%, 3.1 points short. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and 2 times META's 18.4% implies +36.8%, which makes FBL look 7.7 points short. 4.6 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any 2 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. FBL aims to return +2 times META'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. META moved at 49% 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.
METD in plain words
Three months to Sep 30, 2026: METD returned −19.3% where its own daily promise gave −20.5%, 1.2 points over. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and −1 times META's 18.4% implies −18.4%, which makes METD look 0.9 points short. 2.1 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any −1 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. METD aims to return -1 times META's move each day, then resets. Over longer, the daily results compound, so the total is not -1 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, FBL or METD?
- Over the window to Sep 30, 2026, FBL finished 7.7 points from what its multiple implies and METD finished 0.9 points from its own, so METD came closer. Neither figure predicts the next window: it depends on how much the underlying moves about.
- Are FBL and METD levered on the same thing?
- Yes. Both are levered on Meta Platforms, FBL at +2 times and METD at -1 times the daily move.
- Which one decays faster, FBL or METD?
- Decay follows how much the underlying moves about. Over this window FBL’s moved at 49% annualized and METD’s at 49%, so FBL has the rougher ride and, at the same multiple, loses more to compounding.
- Can I hold FBL or METD 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.
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.
ETFIQ, FBL against METD, data as of Sep 30, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/fbl-vs-metd
Free to use with attribution. Every figure is calculated from a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, FBL against METD, data as of Sep 30, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/fbl-vs-metd Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
Other forms
- Plain
- ETFIQ, FBL against METD, data as of Sep 30, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/fbl-vs-metd
- APA
- ETFIQ. (Sep 30, 2026). FBL against METD. Retrieved from https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/fbl-vs-metd
- Markdown
- [FBL against METD (ETFIQ, Sep 30, 2026)](https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/fbl-vs-metd)