ETFIQ Research · rebuilt every trading night

The stated multiple and what the holder got

Over the three months to Sep 28, 2026, 407 of 558 leveraged and inverse ETFs finished short of their own stated multiple. The median fund finished -4.4 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. 54 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.

Short of the stated multiple, by holding period
One month
474 of 680
Three months
407 of 558
Six months
294 of 405
One year
207 of 316
Three years
63 of 123

407 of 558 leveraged and inverse ETFs finished short of their stated multiple over three months to Sep 28, 2026.

ETFIQ Narrative

Over the three months to September 28, 2026, 407 of 558 leveraged and inverse ETFs finished short of their own stated multiple. The median fund landed 4.4 points below what its name promises, with a median distance travelled by the underlying of 5.7% and median underlying volatility of 47%.

These funds are built to deliver their stated multiple over a single day, then reset and do it again the next day. Because each day's result compounds on the last, stringing days together does not produce the multiple times the period's move. The gap between the stated multiple and what a holder actually got tends to widen with how far the underlying travelled during the period, not simply with where it ended up. This shows across the one month, three month, six month, one year, and three year windows in the first table, and again in the volatility breakdown: funds tracking underlyings with 0% to 30% volatility carried a median difference of -1.9%, while those tracking underlyings at 80% volatility and above carried a median difference of -14.9%. The three-month window sits between those, with underlying volatility grouped from 17% at the low end to 94% at the high end across the four bands.

Fifty-four underlyings carry the same stated multiple from more than one issuer, and the second table shows what that produced. ETHA at +2x, tracked by four issuers against an underlying move of +64.6%, shows the widest spread: ETU finished closest to stated at +21.4 and ETHT furthest at +14.5, a spread of 6.8%. CPER at +2x, with two issuers against a +6.6% underlying move, produced a spread of 3.4% between CPXR at -2.2 and UCOP at -5.6. XRPR at +2x, three issuers against +38.0%, spread 3.2% between XRPT at -12.9 and XXRP at -16.0. Further down the table, IBIT at +2x, four issuers against +38.1%, produced a narrower spread of 1.7% between BITX at +2.9 and BTCL at +1.2, and FXI at +2x, two issuers against +7.8%, showed the narrowest spread listed at 1.4% between XPP at -1.9 and CCPX at -3.3. Same mandate, same trading days, same underlying, and still a spread between funds.

A reader can check any of these funds on the live desk by pulling up its stated multiple, its mapped underlying, and the difference between the two over whichever window they choose.

Short of the stated multiple, by the underlying’s volatility
0% to 30%
112 of 177
30% to 50%
87 of 122
50% to 80%
120 of 150
80% and above
88 of 109

407 of 558 leveraged and inverse ETFs finished short of their stated multiple over three months to Sep 28, 2026, grouped by how much the underlying moved.

How far from the stated multiple, by how long it was held

WindowFundsShort of statedMedian differenceMedian distanceMedian underlying volatility
One month680474 of 680−1.6%2.0%44%
Three months558407 of 558−4.4%5.7%47%
Six months405294 of 405−9.1%12.7%43%
One year316207 of 316−10.2%15.2%34%
Three years12363 of 123−9.9%39.1%18%

The same trade from more than one issuer, widest spread first

OnIssuersUnderlying movedClosest to statedFurthestSpread
ETHA +2x4+64.6%ETU +21.4ETHT +14.56.8%
CPER +2x2+6.6%CPXR -2.2UCOP -5.63.4%
XRPR +2x3+38.0%XRPT -12.9XXRP -16.03.2%
STX +2x3−4.8%STXX -13.6STXL -16.12.5%
XLE +2x3+16.6%ERX -0.5XLEX -2.82.2%
PDD +2x2+2.5%KPDD -5.8PDDL -7.82.1%
SPCX +2x7−11.4%SPCM -9.6SPCU -11.52.0%
GLD +2x2+2.5%UGL -2.4UGLD -4.21.8%
EWZ +2x3+4.8%BRZU -2.5BRZX -4.31.8%
IBIT +2x4+38.1%BITX +2.9BTCL +1.21.7%
XLF +2x2+1.2%UYG -1.9XLFX -3.51.6%
FXI +2x2+7.8%XPP -1.9CCPX -3.31.4%

Erosion against the underlying’s volatility, three months

Underlying volatilityFundsMedian volatilityMedian difference from statedShort of stated
0% to 30%17717%−1.9%112 of 177
30% to 50%12239%−5.2%87 of 122
50% to 80%15070%−9.0%120 of 150
80% and above10994%−14.9%88 of 109
Method

Every number 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. Rebuilt every trading night.

Data file: leverage.json. 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 28, 2026. https://etfiq.com/research/2026-09-29/leverage-label

Open data →

Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.