UCC vs WANT: which held to its multiple?

Over three months against its own daily promise, UCC finished 1.3 points short and WANT 1.7 points short. ProShares Ultra Consumer Discretionary and Direxion Daily Consumer Discretionary Bull 3X ETF.

−16.8%
UCC returned, 3 months
−25.1%
WANT returned, 3 months
−1.5 pts
UCC from its stated multiple
−2.2 pts
WANT from its stated multiple
UCC · 3 months to Sep 30, 20261.5 pts short of its stated multiple
1.5 pts short of its stated multipleUCC returned −16.8% while 2 times XLY's move would have been −15.3%XLY −7.6% ×2 implies−15.3%UCC returned−16.8%1.5 pts short of its stated multipleUCC returned −16.8% while 2 times XLY's move would have been −15.3%XLY −7.6% ×2 implies−15.3%UCC returned−16.8%

UCC returned −16.8% while 2 times XLY's move would have been −15.3%

WANT · 3 months to Sep 30, 20262.2 pts short of its stated multiple
2.2 pts short of its stated multipleWANT returned −25.1% while 3 times XLY's move would have been −22.9%XLY −7.6% ×3 implies−22.9%WANT returned−25.1%2.2 pts short of its stated multipleWANT returned −25.1% while 3 times XLY's move would have been −22.9%XLY −7.6% ×3 implies−22.9%WANT returned−25.1%

WANT returned −25.1% while 3 times XLY's move would have been −22.9%

ETFIQ Decay Resistance Score · UCC scores higherDid it keep up with its own daily multiple, compounded day by day?
0.1, the lowest in this set99.9, the highest

A percentile among the 470 leveraged ETFs, long, 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
WindowUCCWANTUCCWANTUCCWANT
1 month−13.3%−19.4%−12.9%−19.3%−0.4 pts−0.1 pts
3 months−16.8%−25.1%−15.3%−22.9%−1.5 pts−2.2 pts
6 months−5.7%−11.5%−0.9%−1.4%−4.8 pts−10.2 pts
1 year−23.9%−38.2%−16.8%−25.3%−7.1 pts−12.9 pts
3 years+38.6%+27.3%+77.2%+115.8%−38.6 pts−88.5 pts
Since launch
UCC Jan 2010 · WANT Nov 2018
+1874.3%+36.5%not meaningfulnot meaningfulnot meaningfulnot meaningful

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

On the same fields

UCC
ProShares Ultra Consumer Discretionary · Aims to return twice the daily move of State Street Consumer Discretionary Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLY)
WANT
Direxion Daily Consumer Discretionary Bull 3X ETF · Aims to return three times the daily move of State Street Consumer Discretionary Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLY)
Issuer ProShares Direxion
Sets out to return +2x +3x
Underlying asset XLY XLY
Segment sector sector
Fund returned, 3 months or since launch −16.8% −25.1%
Underlying returned, over that window −7.6% −7.6%
What the stated multiple implies, over that window −15.3% −22.9%
Difference from stated, over that window −1.5 pts −2.2 pts
Fund returned, 1 year or since launch −23.9% −38.2%
Difference from stated, over that window −7.1 pts −12.9 pts
Underlying volatility 19% 19%
Difference over the days both have traded −1.5 pts no shared window
Expense ratio 0.95% 1.00%
Launched Jan 4, 2010 Nov 29, 2018
Net assets $8m $16m

UCC and WANT on the same fields, as of Sep 30, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.

UCC in plain words

Three months to Sep 30, 2026: UCC returned −16.8% where its own daily promise gave −15.5%, 1.3 points short. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and 2 times XLY's −7.6% implies −15.3%, which makes UCC look 1.5 points short. 0.2 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any 2 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. UCC aims to return +2 times XLY'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. XLY moved at 19% 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.

WANT in plain words

Three months to Sep 30, 2026: WANT returned −25.1% where its own daily promise gave −23.4%, 1.7 points short. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and 3 times XLY's −7.6% implies −22.9%, which makes WANT look 2.2 points short. 0.5 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any 3 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. WANT aims to return +3 times XLY'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, UCC or WANT?
Over the window to Sep 30, 2026, UCC finished 1.5 points from what its multiple implies and WANT finished 2.2 points from its own, so UCC came closer. Neither figure predicts the next window: it depends on how much the underlying moves about.
Are UCC and WANT levered on the same thing?
Yes. Both are levered on State Street Consumer Discretionary Select Sector SPDR ETF, UCC at +2 times and WANT at +3 times the daily move.
Which one decays faster, UCC or WANT?
Decay follows how much the underlying moves about. Over this window UCC’s moved at 19% annualized and WANT’s at 19%, so UCC has the rougher ride and, at the same multiple, loses more to compounding.
Can I hold UCC or WANT 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, UCC or WANT?
UCC charges 0.95% a year and WANT charges 1.00%, so UCC is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Cite this page

ETFIQ, UCC against WANT, data as of Sep 30, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/ucc-vs-want

Open data

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