TBF vs TTT: which held to its multiple?

Over three months against its own daily promise, TBF finished 1.8 points over and TTT 4.0 points over. ProShares Short 20+ Year Treasury and ProShares UltraPro Short 20+ Year Treasury.

+10.6%
TBF returned, 3 months
+31.9%
TTT returned, 3 months
+2.3 pts
TBF from its stated multiple
+6.9 pts
TTT from its stated multiple
TBF · 3 months to Sep 30, 20262.3 pts ahead of its stated multiple
2.3 pts ahead of its stated multipleTBF returned +10.6% while −1 times TLT's move would have been +8.3%TLT −8.3% ×−1 implies+8.3%TBF returned+10.6%2.3 pts ahead of its stated multipleTBF returned +10.6% while −1 times TLT's move would have been +8.3%TLT −8.3% ×−1 implies+8.3%TBF returned+10.6%

TBF returned +10.6% while −1 times TLT's move would have been +8.3%

TTT · 3 months to Sep 30, 20266.9 pts ahead of its stated multiple
6.9 pts ahead of its stated multipleTTT returned +31.9% while −3 times TLT's move would have been +25.0%TLT −8.3% ×−3 implies+25.0%TTT returned+31.9%6.9 pts ahead of its stated multipleTTT returned +31.9% while −3 times TLT's move would have been +25.0%TLT −8.3% ×−3 implies+25.0%TTT returned+31.9%

TTT returned +31.9% while −3 times TLT's move would have been +25.0%

ETFIQ Decay Resistance Score · TTT 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
WindowTBFTTTTBFTTTTBFTTT
1 month+6.0%+17.7%+5.4%+16.1%+0.6 pts+1.6 pts
3 months+10.6%+31.9%+8.3%+25.0%+2.3 pts+6.9 pts
6 months+11.7%+33.3%+8.1%+24.3%+3.6 pts+9.0 pts
1 year+15.8%+42.3%+9.0%+26.9%+6.8 pts+15.4 pts
3 years+18.9%+15.8%+0.4%+1.3%+18.5 pts+14.5 pts
Since launch
TBF Jan 2010 · TTT Mar 2012
−37.0%−69.4%−41.5%−7.1%+4.5 pts−62.3 pts

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

On the same fields

TBF
ProShares Short 20+ Year Treasury · Aims to return 1 times the opposite of the daily move of 20-year Treasuries (TLT)
TTT
ProShares UltraPro Short 20+ Year Treasury · Aims to return three times the opposite of the daily move of 20-year Treasuries (TLT)
Issuer ProShares ProShares
Sets out to return -1x -3x
Underlying asset TLT TLT
Segment bond bond
Fund returned, 3 months or since launch +10.6% +31.9%
Underlying returned, over that window −8.3% −8.3%
What the stated multiple implies, over that window +8.3% +25.0%
Difference from stated, over that window +2.3 pts +6.9 pts
Fund returned, 1 year or since launch +15.8% +42.3%
Difference from stated, over that window +6.8 pts +15.4 pts
Underlying volatility 10% 10%
Difference over the days both have traded no shared window +6.9 pts
Expense ratio 0.95% 0.95%
Launched Jan 4, 2010 Mar 29, 2012
Net assets $142m $26m

TBF and TTT on the same fields, as of Sep 30, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.

TBF in plain words

Three months to Sep 30, 2026: TBF returned +10.6% where its own daily promise gave +8.8%, 1.8 points over. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and −1 times TLT's −8.3% implies +8.3%, which makes TBF look 2.3 points over. 0.5 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any −1 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. TBF aims to return -1 times TLT's move each day, then resets. Over one day it does that. 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. TLT moved at 10% 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.

TTT in plain words

Three months to Sep 30, 2026: TTT returned +31.9% where its own daily promise gave +27.9%, 4.0 points over. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and −3 times TLT's −8.3% implies +25.0%, which makes TTT look 6.9 points over. 2.9 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any −3 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. TTT aims to return -3 times TLT'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, TBF or TTT?
Over the window to Sep 30, 2026, TBF finished 2.3 points from what its multiple implies and TTT finished 6.9 points from its own, so TBF came closer. Neither figure predicts the next window: it depends on how much the underlying moves about.
Are TBF and TTT levered on the same thing?
Yes. Both are levered on 20-year Treasuries, TBF at -1 times and TTT at -3 times the daily move.
Which one decays faster, TBF or TTT?
Decay follows how much the underlying moves about. Over this window TBF’s moved at 10% annualized and TTT’s at 10%, so TBF has the rougher ride and, at the same multiple, loses more to compounding.
Can I hold TBF or TTT 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, TBF or TTT?
TBF charges 0.95% a year and TTT charges 0.95%, so TBF is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Cite this page

ETFIQ, TBF against TTT, data as of Sep 30, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/tbf-vs-ttt

Open data

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