The stated multiple and what the holder got
Over the three months to Sep 11, 2026, 286 of 359 leveraged and inverse ETFs finished short of their own stated multiple. The median fund finished -5.2 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.
59 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 are built to deliver a stated multiple of their underlying's move, but only for a single day. Each day the fund resets, and the daily results compound rather than add up. Over three months to Sep 11, 2026, 286 of 359 such funds finished short of their own stated multiple, with the median fund landing 5.2 points below what the multiple alone would suggest, a median distance of 5.9%. This gap is a mechanical feature of daily resetting compounding through a period, not a sign of tracking failure on any single day.
The pattern holds across holding periods, though not in a straight line. Over one month, 245 of 381 funds fell short, with a median difference of only 1.2 points. Stretch the window to six months and 257 of 313 funds were short, with a median difference of 13.1 points. At three years, 64 of 104 funds were short, by a median of 21.3 points. The size of the gap tracks how far the underlying travelled during the period, not simply where it ended up, since a security that moved sharply in both directions can finish near where it started while still showing a wide gap against the stated multiple.
Volatility of the underlying is the clearer marker. Funds tracking underlyings with 0% to 30% volatility showed a median difference of just 1.7 points, with 67 of 104 funds short. At the other end, funds tracking underlyings with volatility of 80% and above showed a median difference of 17.2 points, with 81 of 96 funds short. Median underlying volatility across the three-month window overall was 51%, and the three-month table's median difference of 5.2 points sits within that broader spread once individual funds are grouped by how choppy their underlying actually was.
Where more than one issuer offers the same stated multiple on the same underlying, the same daily mechanics do not always produce identical results. 59 underlyings carry this duplication, and the second table lists the twelve with the widest spread between the closest and furthest fund. ETHA +2x shows the widest spread at 4.9 points, with ETHU at +8.7 and ETHT at +3.7 against an underlying move of +52.4%. RGTI +2x follows at 3.3 points, with RGTU at -2.6 and RGTX at -6.0 against a -27.2% underlying move. Several other pairs and trios, including ADBE +2x, SOFI +2x, and SMCI +2x, each show spreads of 3.1 points despite sharing the same mandate and the same trading days. These differences arise even though the funds are chasing the identical multiple on the identical underlying over the identical period.
Readers working through this data on the live desk can check any single fund's own underlying, its stated multiple, and its measured distance over the period of their choosing, alongside where that fund's underlying volatility placed it in the erosion table.
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 | 381 | 245 of 381 | −1.2% | 1.9% | 43% |
| Three months | 359 | 286 of 359 | −5.2% | 5.9% | 51% |
| Six months | 313 | 257 of 313 | −13.1% | 14.7% | 46% |
| One year | 245 | 169 of 245 | −10.1% | 17.2% | 36% |
| Three years | 104 | 64 of 104 | −21.3% | 44.2% | 20% |
The same trade from more than one issuer, widest spread first
| On | Issuers | Underlying moved | Closest to stated | Furthest | Spread |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ETHA +2x | 4 | +52.4% | ETHU +8.7 | ETHT +3.7 | 4.9% |
| RGTI +2x | 2 | −27.2% | RGTU -2.6 | RGTX -6.0 | 3.3% |
| ADBE +2x | 2 | +23.6% | ADBU -4.8 | ADBG -7.9 | 3.1% |
| SOFI +2x | 2 | +4.5% | SOFA -10.2 | SOFX -13.3 | 3.1% |
| SMCI +2x | 2 | +31.6% | SMCL -28.0 | SMCX -31.0 | 3.1% |
| CRCL +2x | 3 | +16.4% | CCUP -25.6 | CRCA -27.8 | 2.3% |
| MSTR +2x | 3 | +5.7% | MSTP -22.5 | MSTX -24.7 | 2.2% |
| IREN +2x | 2 | −26.7% | IREX -8.4 | IRE -10.5 | 2.1% |
| MSTR -2x | 2 | +5.7% | MSTZ -40.2 | SMST -42.2 | 2.0% |
| PLTR +2x | 4 | +30.7% | PLTU -14.3 | PLTG -16.2 | 1.9% |
| PDD +2x | 2 | −4.6% | KPDD -4.7 | PDDL -6.5 | 1.8% |
| XRPR +2x | 2 | +19.4% | UXRP -13.1 | XXRP -14.9 | 1.8% |
Erosion against the underlying’s volatility, three months
| Underlying volatility | Funds | Median volatility | Median difference from stated | Short of stated |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0% to 30% | 104 | 16% | −1.7% | 67 of 104 |
| 30% to 50% | 74 | 40% | −5.9% | 70 of 74 |
| 50% to 80% | 85 | 62% | −8.3% | 68 of 85 |
| 80% and above | 96 | 92% | −17.2% | 81 of 96 |
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 11, 2026. https://etfiq.com/research/2026-09-11/leverage-label Free to use with attribution; the underlying file is at https://etfiq.com/data/leverage.json.