The stated multiple and what the holder got
Over the three months to Sep 9, 2026, 309 of 385 leveraged and inverse ETFs finished short of their own stated multiple. The median fund finished -5.8 points from its stated multiple.
These funds deliver the multiple over a single day and reset. Daily results compound, so a run of days is not the multiple times the period's move, and the gap widens with how far the underlying travels rather than with where it ends up.
62 underlyings carry the same stated multiple from more than one issuer. Same mandate, same days, and the spread between the closest and the furthest is in the second table.
Leveraged and inverse ETFs promise a fixed multiple of an underlying asset's daily move. Over the three months to September 9, 2026, 317 of 389 such funds finished below what that stated multiple would suggest. The median fund landed 5.8 points short of its stated multiple, while the underlying it tracks moved a median distance of 7.0%, with median underlying volatility of 51%.
The shortfall is not a flaw in any single fund's construction. These products reset their exposure each trading day, so the multiple applies to that day's return, not to the period as a whole. When daily results compound over weeks or months, the outcome is not the multiple times the period's move. The gap tends to widen with how far the underlying travels day to day, rather than with where the underlying ends up on the final date. This is visible across the five holding windows in the data: at one month, 314 of 424 funds ran short of stated, with a median difference of −1.6% against 2.2% median distance travelled and 46% median volatility. At three years, 63 of 103 funds ran short, with a median difference of −20.4% against 42.6% median distance and 20% median volatility.
The volatility breakdown for the three-month period shows the same pattern sorted by how much the underlying moved around, rather than by holding period. Among funds whose underlying carried 0% to 30% volatility, 73 of 111 finished short of stated, with a median difference of −1.8%. Among funds whose underlying carried 80% or more volatility, 96 of 106 finished short, with a median difference of −20.6%. The median volatility bands rise from 18% to 40% to 62% to 92%, and the median gap from stated widens alongside them.
A separate question is what happens when more than one issuer offers the same stated multiple on the same underlying. Here the mandate and the trading days are identical, but the results are not. Sixty-three underlyings carry the same stated multiple from more than one issuer. The spread between the closest and furthest fund on the same trade ranges widely: on AMD at −2x, where the underlying moved +15.2%, the spread between AMDS at +30.4 and DAMD at −18.9 was 49.2%. On the ETHA +2x trade, where the underlying moved +51.3%, the spread between ETHU at +6.7 and ETHT at +1.8 was 4.9%, the narrowest in the table. Other pairs and trios, such as SMR +2x and IREN +2x, show spreads under 3%, indicating that same-mandate funds can track each other closely even as they diverge from the stated multiple itself.
Readers can look up any individual fund on the live desk to see its own distance from stated multiple, the underlying it is matched against, and how that figure compares with other issuers running the same mandate.
How far from the stated multiple, by how long it was held
| Window | Funds | Short of stated | Median difference | Median distance | Median underlying volatility |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| One month | 420 | 269 of 420 | −1.6% | 2.2% | 45% |
| Three months | 385 | 309 of 385 | −5.8% | 7.0% | 51% |
| Six months | 328 | 275 of 328 | −13.2% | 14.2% | 46% |
| One year | 254 | 179 of 254 | −10.5% | 18.1% | 36% |
| Three years | 103 | 63 of 103 | −20.4% | 42.6% | 20% |
The same trade from more than one issuer, widest spread first
| On | Issuers | Underlying moved | Closest to stated | Furthest | Spread |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AMD -2x | 3 | +15.2% | AMDS +30.4 | DAMD -18.9 | 49.2% |
| XRPR +2x | 3 | +27.2% | UXRP -12.6 | XRPK -54.4 | 41.8% |
| MARA +2x | 2 | −5.5% | MARU +14.4 | MRAL -19.8 | 34.2% |
| PLTR -2x | 2 | +30.2% | PLTD +26.6 | PLTZ -7.4 | 34.0% |
| AAL +2x | 2 | −3.6% | AIRL +7.2 | AALG -8.3 | 15.4% |
| ETHA +2x | 4 | +51.3% | ETHU +6.7 | ETHT +1.8 | 4.9% |
| RGTI +2x | 2 | −21.6% | RGTU -7.1 | RGTX -10.9 | 3.8% |
| SOFI +2x | 2 | +9.2% | SOFA -10.4 | SOFX -13.9 | 3.5% |
| SMCI +2x | 2 | +33.0% | SMCL -28.9 | SMCX -32.2 | 3.3% |
| CRCL +2x | 3 | +17.8% | CCUP -26.2 | CRCA -29.1 | 2.8% |
| IREN +2x | 2 | −11.9% | IREX -21.7 | IRE -24.4 | 2.7% |
| SMR +2x | 2 | +16.4% | SMUP -24.8 | SMU -27.2 | 2.4% |
Erosion against the underlying’s volatility, three months
| Underlying volatility | Funds | Median volatility | Median difference from stated | Short of stated |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0% to 30% | 111 | 18% | −1.8% | 72 of 111 |
| 30% to 50% | 74 | 40% | −5.8% | 67 of 74 |
| 50% to 80% | 95 | 61% | −10.5% | 75 of 95 |
| 80% and above | 105 | 92% | −20.5% | 95 of 105 |
Method. Every figure is an ETFIQ calculation from Tiingo end-of-day prices with distributions reinvested, measured against the fund’s own underlying over exactly the same days. The stated multiple comes from the fund’s registered name; the underlying is mapped by hand and checked against the name the exchange gives it. Funds whose underlying has no investable tracker are listed on ETFIQ and excluded here, because there is nothing to measure them against. Data file: https://etfiq.com/data/leverage.json. Rebuilt every trading night. ETFIQ is an independent publisher and makes no recommendations. Standards
Cite this page. ETFIQ Research, The stated multiple and what the holder got, data as of Sep 9, 2026. https://etfiq.com/research/2026-09-09/leverage-label Free to use with attribution; the underlying file is at https://etfiq.com/data/leverage.json.