ROM vs TECS: which held to its multiple?
Over three months against its own daily promise, ROM finished 1.6 points short and TECS 2.8 points over. ProShares Ultra Technology and Direxion Daily Technology Bear 3X ETF.
ROM returned +8.0% while 2 times XLK's move would have been +11.2%
TECS returned −21.0% while −3 times XLK's move would have been −16.7%
ROM among the 470 leveraged ETFs, long, over three months
TECS among the 125 inverse ETFs over three months
A percentile among the 470 leveraged ETFs, long, over three months. TECS 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 | ROM | TECS | ROM | TECS | ROM | TECS |
| 1 month | +9.7% | −14.3% | +10.2% | −15.2% | −0.4 pts | +0.9 pts |
| 3 months | +8.0% | −21.0% | +11.2% | −16.7% | −3.2 pts | −4.3 pts |
| 6 months | +97.0% | −73.2% | +90.9% | −136.3% | +6.1 pts | +63.1 pts |
| 1 year | +71.9% | −72.2% | +79.2% | −118.8% | −7.3 pts | +46.6 pts |
| 3 years | +308.5% | −96.4% | not meaningful | not meaningful | not meaningful | not meaningful |
| Since launch ROM Jan 2010 · TECS Jan 2010 | +9405.0% | −100.0% | not meaningful | not meaningful | not meaningful | not meaningful |
ROM and TECS over each window. Every figure is an ETFIQ calculation with distributions reinvested. Source: ETFIQ. Open the live comparison on ETFIQ →
On the same fields
ROM and TECS on the same fields, as of Sep 30, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
ROM in plain words
Three months to Sep 30, 2026: ROM returned +8.0% where its own daily promise gave +9.6%, 1.6 points short. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and 2 times XLK's 5.6% implies +11.2%, which makes ROM look 3.2 points short. 1.6 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any 2 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. ROM aims to return +2 times XLK'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. XLK moved at 26% 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.
TECS in plain words
Three months to Sep 30, 2026: TECS returned −21.0% where its own daily promise gave −23.8%, 2.8 points over. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and −3 times XLK's 5.6% implies −16.7%, which makes TECS look 4.3 points short. 7.0 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any −3 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. TECS aims to return -3 times XLK'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, ROM or TECS?
- Over the window to Sep 30, 2026, ROM finished 3.2 points from what its multiple implies and TECS finished 4.3 points from its own, so ROM came closer. Neither figure predicts the next window: it depends on how much the underlying moves about.
- Are ROM and TECS levered on the same thing?
- Yes. Both are levered on technology, ROM at +2 times and TECS at -3 times the daily move.
- Which one decays faster, ROM or TECS?
- Decay follows how much the underlying moves about. Over this window ROM’s moved at 26% annualized and TECS’s at 26%, so ROM has the rougher ride and, at the same multiple, loses more to compounding.
- Can I hold ROM or TECS 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, ROM against TECS, data as of Sep 30, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/rom-vs-tecs
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, ROM against TECS, data as of Sep 30, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/rom-vs-tecs Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
Other forms
- Plain
- ETFIQ, ROM against TECS, data as of Sep 30, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/rom-vs-tecs
- APA
- ETFIQ. (Sep 30, 2026). ROM against TECS. Retrieved from https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/rom-vs-tecs
- Markdown
- [ROM against TECS (ETFIQ, Sep 30, 2026)](https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/rom-vs-tecs)