Which came closer to its stated multiple, SMU or SMZ?

Over the window to Sep 30, 2026, SMU finished 9.4 points from what its multiple implies and SMZ finished 60.2 points from its own, so SMU came closer. Neither figure predicts the next window: it depends on how much the underlying moves about.

Are SMU and SMZ levered on the same thing?

Yes. Both are levered on NuScale Power, SMU at +2 times and SMZ at -2 times the daily move.

Which one decays faster, SMU or SMZ?

Decay follows how much the underlying moves about. Over this window SMU’s moved at 89% annualized and SMZ’s at 89%, so SMU has the rougher ride and, at the same multiple, loses more to compounding.

Can I hold SMU or SMZ 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, SMU or SMZ?

SMU charges 1.30% a year and SMZ charges 1.49%, so SMU is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.

Share on X Download as PDF Open live

SMU vs SMZ: which held to its multiple?

Over three months against its own daily promise, SMU finished 3.2 points short and SMZ 5.6 points short. Tradr 2X Long SMR Daily ETF and Tradr 2X Short SMR Daily ETF.

−53.7%

SMU returned, 3 months

−15.9%

SMZ returned, 3 months

−9.4 pts

SMU from its stated multiple

−60.2 pts

SMZ from its stated multiple

SMU · 3 months to Sep 30, 20269.4 pts short of its stated multiple

SMU returned −53.7% while 2 times SMR's move would have been −44.3%

SMZ · 3 months to Sep 30, 202660.2 pts short of its stated multiple

SMZ returned −15.9% while −2 times SMR's move would have been +44.3%

ETFIQ Decay Resistance Score · SMU scores higherDid it keep up with its own daily multiple, compounded day by day?

SMU among the 470 leveraged ETFs, long, over three months

SMU 36.4

0.1, the lowest in this set99.9, the highest

SMZ among the 125 inverse ETFs over three months

SMZ 5.2

0.4, the lowest in this set99.6, the highest

A percentile among the 470 leveraged ETFs, long, over three months. SMZ 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	SMU	SMZ	SMU	SMZ	SMU	SMZ
1 month	−34.7%	+5.9%	−29.6%	+29.6%	−5.1 pts	−23.7 pts
3 months	−53.7%	−15.9%	−44.3%	+44.3%	−9.4 pts	−60.2 pts
6 months	−67.5%	−65.4%	−46.0%	+46.0%	−21.5 pts	−111.4 pts
1 year	−98.7%	not published	−156.1%	not published	+57.5 pts	not published
Since launch SMU Jul 2025 · SMZ Feb 2026	−99.0%	−34.2%	−157.8%	+98.5%	+58.8 pts	−132.7 pts

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

On the same fields

SMU

Tradr 2X Long SMR Daily ETF · Aims to return twice the daily move of NuScale Power (SMR)

SMZ

Tradr 2X Short SMR Daily ETF · Aims to return twice the opposite of the daily move of NuScale Power (SMR)

Issuer Tradr Tradr

Sets out to return +2x -2x

Underlying asset SMR SMR

Segment company company

Fund returned, 3 months or since launch −53.7% −15.9%

Underlying returned, over that window −22.2% −22.2%

What the stated multiple implies, over that window −44.3% +44.3%

Difference from stated, over that window −9.4 pts −60.2 pts

Fund returned, 1 year or since launch −98.7% −34.2%

Difference from stated, over that window +57.5 pts −132.7 pts

Underlying volatility 89% 89%

Difference over the days both have traded −5.1 pts no shared window

Expense ratio 1.30% 1.49%

Launched Jul 11, 2025 Feb 11, 2026

Net assets $46m $752,915

SMU and SMZ on the same fields, as of Sep 30, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.

SMU in plain words

Three months to Sep 30, 2026: SMU returned −53.7% where its own daily promise gave −50.5%, 3.2 points short. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and 2 times SMR's −22.2% implies −44.3%, which makes SMU look 9.4 points short. 6.2 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any 2 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. SMU aims to return +2 times SMR'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. SMR moved at 89% 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.

SMZ in plain words

Three months to Sep 30, 2026: SMZ returned −15.9% where its own daily promise gave −10.2%, 5.6 points short. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and −2 times SMR's −22.2% implies +44.3%, which makes SMZ look 60.2 points short. 54.6 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any −2 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. SMZ aims to return -2 times SMR'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, SMU or SMZ?: Over the window to Sep 30, 2026, SMU finished 9.4 points from what its multiple implies and SMZ finished 60.2 points from its own, so SMU came closer. Neither figure predicts the next window: it depends on how much the underlying moves about.
Are SMU and SMZ levered on the same thing?: Yes. Both are levered on NuScale Power, SMU at +2 times and SMZ at -2 times the daily move.
Which one decays faster, SMU or SMZ?: Decay follows how much the underlying moves about. Over this window SMU’s moved at 89% annualized and SMZ’s at 89%, so SMU has the rougher ride and, at the same multiple, loses more to compounding.
Can I hold SMU or SMZ 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, SMU or SMZ?: SMU charges 1.30% a year and SMZ charges 1.49%, so SMU is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.

Other comparisons

SMU vs SMUP SMU vs SMRX SMZ vs SMRX SMZ vs SMUP

SMU on its own →SMZ on its own →How every figure is computed →Standards and sources →

Where these figures came from

SMU and SMZ filings on SEC EDGAR ↗SMU prospectus with the expense ratio (SEC) ↗Tradr website ↗SMZ prospectus with the expense ratio (SEC) ↗

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, SMU against SMZ, data as of Sep 30, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/smu-vs-smz

Open data

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