Over the three months to Sep 24, 2026, 399 of 554 leveraged and inverse ETFs finished short of their own stated multiple. The median fund landed 4.2 points below the multiple printed in its name, with a median distance travelled by the underlying of 6.0% and median underlying volatility of 46%. Across holding periods the pattern holds in different sizes: at one month, 463 of 681 funds fell short, with a median difference of -1.6% against 2.1% underlying distance and 43% volatility. At six months, 303 of 409 funds fell short, median difference -10.0%, distance 12.6%. At one year, 206 of 313 fell short, median difference -8.9%, distance 14.4%. At three years, the count of funds tracked narrows to 126, of which 64 finished short, median difference -2.7%, against a much larger distance travelled of 38.6% and lower volatility of 20%.
The mechanism is stated plainly in the summary: these funds deliver their multiple over a single trading day, then reset and start again. String daily results together over weeks or months and the outcome is not the multiple times the period's total move, because daily compounding takes over. The gap between what a fund shows and what its name promises tracks how far the underlying travelled during the window, and separately how volatile that path was, rather than simply where the underlying ended up. The volatility breakdown for the three-month window makes this explicit: funds tracking underlyings with 0% to 30% volatility had a median difference of -1.6%, while those with 80% and above had a median difference of -18.2%, with 94 of 113 such funds finishing short.
A separate pattern shows up when more than one issuer offers the same stated multiple on the same underlying. Fifty-four underlyings had this setup, and the second table lists the widest spreads between issuers running an identical mandate over identical days. ETHA at +2x had the widest spread among the twelve listed, at 6.3 percentage points, with the underlying up 73.2% and ETHU closest to stated at +30.0 against ETHT at +23.8. CPER +2x showed a 3.9-point spread between CPXR and UCOP, and CBRS +2x showed 3.5 points between CBRX and CBRG. At the narrower end of this list, FXI +2x showed a 1.6-point spread between XPP and CCPX, and XLF +2x showed 1.6 points between UYG and XLFX. Same underlying, same stated multiple, same calendar days, yet the funds did not print identical results.
Every number here is drawn directly from ETFIQ's calculations against Tiingo end-of-day prices with distributions reinvested, comparing each fund to its own mapped underlying over matching dates. Funds whose underlying has no investable tracker are excluded, since there is nothing to measure them against.
Readers can look up any individual fund on the live desk to see its own multiple, its own underlying's move over the period chosen, and the resulting distance from stated, alongside where it sits against others sharing the same mandate.