Which came closer to its stated multiple, LQDD or LQDU?

Over the window to Sep 30, 2026, LQDD finished 0.9 points from what its multiple implies and LQDU finished 0.9 points from its own, so LQDD came closer. Neither figure predicts the next window: it depends on how much the underlying moves about.

Are LQDD and LQDU levered on the same thing?

Yes. Both are levered on investment-grade bonds, LQDD at -3 times and LQDU at +3 times the daily move.

Which one decays faster, LQDD or LQDU?

Decay follows how much the underlying moves about. Over this window LQDD’s moved at 7% annualized and LQDU’s at 7%, so LQDD has the rougher ride and, at the same multiple, loses more to compounding.

Can I hold LQDD or LQDU 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.

Share on X Download as PDF Open live

LQDD vs LQDU: which held to its multiple?

Over a month against its own daily promise, LQDD finished 0.4 points over and LQDU 1.1 points short. MicroSectors -3x Short Investment Grade Corporate Bond (LQD) ETNs and MicroSectors 3x Long Investment Grade Corporate Bond (LQD) ETNs.

+10.7%

LQDD returned, since launch

−11.6%

LQDU returned, since launch

+1.1 pts

LQDD from its stated multiple

−2.0 pts

LQDU from its stated multiple

LQDD · 1 month to Sep 30, 20260.9 pts ahead of its stated multiple

LQDD returned +11.0% while −3 times LQD's move would have been +10.2%

LQDU · 1 month to Sep 30, 20260.9 pts short of its stated multiple

LQDU returned −11.0% while 3 times LQD's move would have been −10.2%

Performance, window by window

	Total return		Multiple would give		Difference
Window	LQDD	LQDU	LQDD	LQDU	LQDD	LQDU
1 month	+11.0%	−11.0%	+10.2%	−10.2%	+0.9 pts	−0.9 pts
Since launch LQDD Aug 2026 · LQDU Aug 2026	+10.7%	−11.6%	+9.6%	−9.6%	+1.1 pts	−2.0 pts

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

On the same fields

LQDD

MicroSectors -3x Short Investment Grade Corporate Bond (LQD) ETNs · Aims to return three times the opposite of the daily move of investment-grade bonds (LQD)

LQDU

MicroSectors 3x Long Investment Grade Corporate Bond (LQD) ETNs · Aims to return three times the daily move of investment-grade bonds (LQD)

Issuer MicroSectors MicroSectors

Sets out to return -3x +3x

Underlying asset LQD LQD

Segment index index

Fund returned, 3 months or since launch +11.0% −11.0%

Underlying returned, over that window −3.4% −3.4%

What the stated multiple implies, over that window +10.2% −10.2%

Difference from stated, over that window +0.9 pts −0.9 pts

Fund returned, 1 year or since launch +10.7% −11.6%

Difference from stated, over that window +1.1 pts −2.0 pts

Underlying volatility 7% 7%

Expense ratio not published not published

Launched Aug 11, 2026 Aug 11, 2026

Net assets not published not published

LQDD and LQDU on the same fields, as of Sep 30, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.

LQDD in plain words

One month to Sep 30, 2026: LQDD returned +11.0% where its own daily promise gave +10.6%, 0.4 points over. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and −3 times LQD's −3.4% implies +10.2%, which makes LQDD look 0.9 points over. 0.4 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any −3 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. LQDD aims to return -3 times LQD'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. LQD moved at 7% 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.

LQDU in plain words

One month to Sep 30, 2026: LQDU returned −11.0% where its own daily promise gave −9.9%, 1.1 points short. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and 3 times LQD's −3.4% implies −10.2%, which makes LQDU look 0.9 points short. 0.2 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any 3 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. LQDU aims to return +3 times LQD's move each day, then resets. 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.

Questions people ask

Which came closer to its stated multiple, LQDD or LQDU?: Over the window to Sep 30, 2026, LQDD finished 0.9 points from what its multiple implies and LQDU finished 0.9 points from its own, so LQDD came closer. Neither figure predicts the next window: it depends on how much the underlying moves about.
Are LQDD and LQDU levered on the same thing?: Yes. Both are levered on investment-grade bonds, LQDD at -3 times and LQDU at +3 times the daily move.
Which one decays faster, LQDD or LQDU?: Decay follows how much the underlying moves about. Over this window LQDD’s moved at 7% annualized and LQDU’s at 7%, so LQDD has the rougher ride and, at the same multiple, loses more to compounding.
Can I hold LQDD or LQDU 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

LQD →LQDD on its own →LQDU on its own →How every figure is computed →Standards and sources →

Where these figures came from

MicroSectors website ↗

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, LQDD against LQDU, data as of Sep 30, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/lqdd-vs-lqdu

Open data

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