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

Over the window to Sep 30, 2026, TZA finished 4.2 points from what its multiple implies and UWM finished 1.0 points from its own, so UWM came closer. Neither figure predicts the next window: it depends on how much the underlying moves about.

Are TZA and UWM levered on the same thing?

Yes. Both are levered on the Russell 2000, TZA at -3 times and UWM at +2 times the daily move.

Which one decays faster, TZA or UWM?

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

Can I hold TZA or UWM 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, TZA or UWM?

TZA charges 0.99% a year and UWM charges 0.95%, so UWM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.

Share on X Download as PDF Open live

TZA vs UWM: which held to its multiple?

Over three months against its own daily promise, TZA finished 4.2 points over and UWM 1.1 points short. Direxion Daily Small Cap Bear 3X ETF and ProShares Ultra Russell2000.

+25.0%

TZA returned, 3 months

−14.9%

UWM returned, 3 months

+4.2 pts

TZA from its stated multiple

−1.0 pts

UWM from its stated multiple

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%

UWM · 3 months to Sep 30, 20261 pt short of its stated multiple

UWM returned −14.9% while 2 times IWM's move would have been −13.8%

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

TZA among the 125 inverse ETFs over three months

TZA 95.6

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

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

UWM 94.1

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

A percentile among the 125 inverse ETFs over three months. UWM is a percentile among the 470 leveraged ETFs, long, 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	TZA	UWM	TZA	UWM	TZA	UWM
1 month	+17.9%	−10.6%	+15.6%	−10.4%	+2.3 pts	−0.1 pts
3 months	+25.0%	−14.9%	+20.8%	−13.8%	+4.2 pts	−1.0 pts
6 months	−29.7%	+20.4%	−35.7%	+23.8%	+6.0 pts	−3.4 pts
1 year	−40.1%	+23.5%	−48.1%	+32.0%	+8.0 pts	−8.6 pts
3 years	−82.9%	+93.6%	−187.7%	+125.2%	+104.8 pts	−31.5 pts
Since launch TZA Jan 2010 · UWM Jan 2010	−100.0%	+705.0%	not meaningful	not meaningful	not meaningful	not meaningful

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

On the same fields

TZA

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

UWM

ProShares Ultra Russell2000 · Aims to return twice the daily move of the Russell 2000

Issuer Direxion ProShares

Sets out to return -3x +2x

Underlying asset IWM IWM

Segment us small cap us small cap

Fund returned, 3 months or since launch +25.0% −14.9%

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

What the stated multiple implies, over that window +20.8% −13.8%

Difference from stated, over that window +4.2 pts −1.0 pts

Fund returned, 1 year or since launch −40.1% +23.5%

Difference from stated, over that window +8.0 pts −8.6 pts

Underlying volatility 13% 13%

Difference over the days both have traded +4.2 pts no shared window

Expense ratio 0.99% 0.95%

Launched Jan 4, 2010 Jan 4, 2010

Net assets $237m $221m

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

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 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.

UWM in plain words

Three months to Sep 30, 2026: UWM returned −14.9% where its own daily promise gave −13.7%, 1.1 points short. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and 2 times IWM's −6.9% implies −13.8%, which makes UWM look 1.0 points short. 0.1 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any 2 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. UWM aims to return +2 times IWM'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, TZA or UWM?: Over the window to Sep 30, 2026, TZA finished 4.2 points from what its multiple implies and UWM finished 1.0 points from its own, so UWM came closer. Neither figure predicts the next window: it depends on how much the underlying moves about.
Are TZA and UWM levered on the same thing?: Yes. Both are levered on the Russell 2000, TZA at -3 times and UWM at +2 times the daily move.
Which one decays faster, TZA or UWM?: Decay follows how much the underlying moves about. Over this window TZA’s moved at 13% annualized and UWM’s at 13%, so TZA has the rougher ride and, at the same multiple, loses more to compounding.
Can I hold TZA or UWM 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, TZA or UWM?: TZA charges 0.99% a year and UWM charges 0.95%, so UWM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.

Other comparisons

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

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

Where these figures came from

TZA filings on SEC EDGAR ↗TZA prospectus with the expense ratio (SEC) ↗Direxion website ↗UWM filings on SEC EDGAR ↗UWM prospectus with the expense ratio (SEC) ↗ProShares page for UWM ↗

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, TZA against UWM, data as of Sep 30, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/tza-vs-uwm

Open data

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