Which came closer to its stated multiple, TNA or TZA?

Over the window to Sep 30, 2026, TNA finished 1.5 points from what its multiple implies and TZA finished 4.2 points from its own, so TNA came closer. Neither figure predicts the next window: it depends on how much the underlying moves about.

Are TNA and TZA levered on the same thing?

Yes. Both are levered on the Russell 2000, TNA at +3 times and TZA at -3 times the daily move.

Which one decays faster, TNA or TZA?

Decay follows how much the underlying moves about. Over this window TNA’s moved at 13% annualized and TZA’s at 13%, so TNA has the rougher ride and, at the same multiple, loses more to compounding.

Can I hold TNA or TZA 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, TNA or TZA?

TNA charges 1.05% a year and TZA charges 0.99%, so TZA is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.

Share on X Download as PDF Open live

TNA vs TZA: which held to its multiple?

Over three months against its own daily promise, TNA finished 1.9 points short and TZA 4.2 points over. Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X ETF and Direxion Daily Small Cap Bear 3X ETF.

−22.3%

TNA returned, 3 months

+25.0%

TZA returned, 3 months

−1.5 pts

TNA from its stated multiple

+4.2 pts

TZA from its stated multiple

TNA · 3 months to Sep 30, 20261.5 pts short of its stated multiple

TNA returned −22.3% while 3 times IWM's move would have been −20.8%

TZA · 3 months to Sep 30, 20264.2 pts ahead of its stated multiple

TZA returned +25.0% while −3 times IWM's move would have been +20.8%

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

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

TNA 73.2

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

TZA among the 125 inverse ETFs over three months

TZA 95.6

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

A percentile among the 470 leveraged ETFs, long, over three months. TZA 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	TNA	TZA	TNA	TZA	TNA	TZA
1 month	−15.8%	+17.9%	−15.6%	+15.6%	−0.2 pts	+2.3 pts
3 months	−22.3%	+25.0%	−20.8%	+20.8%	−1.5 pts	+4.2 pts
6 months	+28.6%	−29.7%	+35.7%	−35.7%	−7.1 pts	+6.0 pts
1 year	+28.0%	−40.1%	+48.1%	−48.1%	−20.1 pts	+8.0 pts
3 years	+106.5%	−82.9%	+187.7%	−187.7%	−81.2 pts	+104.8 pts
Since launch TNA Jan 2010 · TZA Jan 2010	+440.2%	−100.0%	not meaningful	not meaningful	not meaningful	not meaningful

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

On the same fields

TNA

Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X ETF · Aims to return three times the daily move of the Russell 2000

TZA

Direxion Daily Small Cap Bear 3X ETF · Aims to return three times the opposite of the daily move of the Russell 2000

Issuer Direxion Direxion

Sets out to return +3x -3x

Underlying asset IWM IWM

Segment us small cap us small cap

Fund returned, 3 months or since launch −22.3% +25.0%

Underlying returned, over that window −6.9% −6.9%

What the stated multiple implies, over that window −20.8% +20.8%

Difference from stated, over that window −1.5 pts +4.2 pts

Fund returned, 1 year or since launch +28.0% −40.1%

Difference from stated, over that window −20.1 pts +8.0 pts

Underlying volatility 13% 13%

Difference over the days both have traded −1.5 pts +4.2 pts

Expense ratio 1.05% 0.99%

Launched Jan 4, 2010 Jan 4, 2010

Net assets $1.3bn $237m

TNA and TZA on the same fields, as of Sep 30, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.

TNA in plain words

Three months to Sep 30, 2026: TNA returned −22.3% where its own daily promise gave −20.4%, 1.9 points short. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and 3 times IWM's −6.9% implies −20.8%, which makes TNA look 1.5 points short. 0.4 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any 3 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. TNA aims to return +3 times IWM'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. IWM moved at 13% 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.

TZA in plain words

Three months to Sep 30, 2026: TZA returned +25.0% where its own daily promise gave +20.8%, 4.2 points over. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and −3 times IWM's −6.9% implies +20.8%, which makes TZA look 4.2 points over. 0.0 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any −3 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. TZA aims to return -3 times IWM'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, TNA or TZA?: Over the window to Sep 30, 2026, TNA finished 1.5 points from what its multiple implies and TZA finished 4.2 points from its own, so TNA came closer. Neither figure predicts the next window: it depends on how much the underlying moves about.
Are TNA and TZA levered on the same thing?: Yes. Both are levered on the Russell 2000, TNA at +3 times and TZA at -3 times the daily move.
Which one decays faster, TNA or TZA?: Decay follows how much the underlying moves about. Over this window TNA’s moved at 13% annualized and TZA’s at 13%, so TNA has the rougher ride and, at the same multiple, loses more to compounding.
Can I hold TNA or TZA 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, TNA or TZA?: TNA charges 1.05% a year and TZA charges 0.99%, so TZA is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.

Other comparisons

TNA vs TWM TNA vs URTY TNA vs SRTY TNA vs UWM TZA vs URTY TZA vs UWM TZA vs RWM TZA vs TWM

IWM →TNA on its own →TZA on its own →How every figure is computed →Standards and sources →

Where these figures came from

TNA and TZA filings on SEC EDGAR ↗TNA and TZA prospectus with the expense ratio (SEC) ↗Direxion 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, TNA against TZA, data as of Sep 30, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/tna-vs-tza

Open data

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