The stated multiple and what the holder got
Over the three months to Sep 11, 2026, 400 of 511 leveraged and inverse ETFs finished short of their own stated multiple. The median fund finished -4.6 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.
50 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 advertise a multiple of a daily move, usually two times or minus two times an underlying stock, coin or index. What a holder actually receives after weeks or months of holding is a separate question, because the multiple resets each day and daily results compound rather than add up. ETFIQ's data as of September 11, 2026 shows how wide that gap has become across the field.
Over the three months to that date, 222 of 276 leveraged and inverse ETFs finished short of their own stated multiple. The median fund finished 5.0 points from its stated multiple. This is not a story of one bad quarter. Across five holding windows, from one month to three years, the median gap widens the longer a fund is held: -1.3% at one month, -5.0% at three months, -12.4% at six months, -14.3% at one year, and -28.5% at three years. The median distance travelled by the underlying also grows over these windows, from 1.9% to 41.3%, which is consistent with the stated mechanic: the gap tracks how far the underlying has moved, not simply where the underlying ends up.
Volatility of the underlying matters too. Splitting the three-month sample by the underlying's own volatility, funds tracking underlyings with 0% to 30% volatility show a median difference of -1.9% from stated, with 60 of 85 funds short. At the other end, underlyings with 80% and above volatility show a median difference of -16.5%, with 64 of 76 funds short. Median volatility rises steadily across the four bands, from 14% to 94%, and the erosion rises with it.
The same underlying and the same stated multiple can also produce different results depending on the issuer. 46 underlyings in this dataset carry the same stated multiple from more than one issuer, and the spread between the closest and furthest fund on the same trade varies. On ETHA at +2x, three issuers held the same mandate over the same days while the underlying moved +52.4%; ETHU stood 8.7 points from stated and ETHT 3.7 points, a 4.9 percentage point spread between them. On RGTI at +2x, with the underlying down 27.2%, RGTU stood 2.6 points off stated against RGTX at 6.0 points, a 3.3 point spread. Smaller spreads appear further down the list, such as AAPL +2x, where AAPB and AAPX differed by 1.3 points while tracking the same +14.2% underlying move across three issuers.
None of this describes a fund failing to do what it says. Each is built to deliver its multiple over a single trading day, and the reset is disclosed. What the tables show is the arithmetic consequence of holding that daily product across many days, and how that consequence scales with the underlying's path and its volatility, and can differ by issuer even on the identical trade.
Readers can check any of these funds against their own stated multiple and underlying on the live desk, using the same holding window and volatility bands shown here.
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 | 662 | 439 of 662 | −1.3% | 1.8% | 44% |
| Three months | 511 | 400 of 511 | −4.6% | 5.3% | 45% |
| Six months | 411 | 320 of 411 | −11.1% | 13.2% | 45% |
| One year | 304 | 199 of 304 | −8.5% | 15.9% | 34% |
| Three years | 134 | 73 of 134 | −13.1% | 39.5% | 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% |
| CPER +2x | 2 | −0.9% | CPXR -1.4 | UCOP -5.0 | 3.6% |
| ADBE +2x | 2 | +23.6% | ADBU -4.8 | ADBG -7.9 | 3.1% |
| XRPR +2x | 3 | +19.4% | XRPT -12.8 | XXRP -14.9 | 2.1% |
| XLE +2x | 3 | +14.0% | DIG -1.1 | XLEX -3.1 | 2.0% |
| EWZ +2x | 3 | +9.8% | BRZU -2.0 | BRZX -4.0 | 2.0% |
| MSTR -2x | 2 | +5.7% | MSTZ -40.2 | SMST -42.2 | 2.0% |
| PDD +2x | 2 | −4.6% | KPDD -4.7 | PDDL -6.5 | 1.8% |
| INDA +2x | 2 | +0.5% | INDL -1.6 | TAJX -3.3 | 1.7% |
| IBIT +2x | 4 | +21.4% | BITX -4.1 | BTCL -5.7 | 1.6% |
| XLF +2x | 2 | +7.7% | UYG -1.6 | XLFX -3.1 | 1.5% |
| VGK +2x | 2 | +1.8% | UPV -1.9 | XEUR -3.3 | 1.4% |
Erosion against the underlying’s volatility, three months
| Underlying volatility | Funds | Median volatility | Median difference from stated | Short of stated |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0% to 30% | 160 | 17% | −2.0% | 106 of 160 |
| 30% to 50% | 117 | 40% | −5.2% | 103 of 117 |
| 50% to 80% | 109 | 62% | −7.8% | 85 of 109 |
| 80% and above | 125 | 93% | −15.2% | 106 of 125 |
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/2026-09-12/leverage-label Free to use with attribution; the underlying file is at https://etfiq.com/data/leverage.json.