FAS ranks 3rd and TNA 20th of 30 funds in the 3x Leveraged Long Category.
FAS vs TNA
FAS −0.17pt a year
0.88%1.05%
TNA 10.5×the volume
413K4.32M
FAS +15.1pt
+20.9%+5.8%
FAS vs TNA Performance
+31.4%−35.5%
- FAS 0.88%, better
- TNA 1.05%
- FAS $2.17B
- TNA $1.4B
- FAS +12.3%
- TNA +24.0%, better
- FAS 8.87%, better
- TNA 0.31%
- FAS 87
- TNA 12
- FAS 413K sh
- TNA 4.32M sh, better
- FAS $168.18
- TNA $60.85
ETF.net Grade
| Pillar | FAS | TNA |
|---|---|---|
| Cost | A92Higher | F17 |
| Mission | ||
| Risk | B69Higher | B57 |
| Tradability | A73Higher | B67 |
| Holdings | ||
| Durability | B66Higher | B63 |
Rank among 3x Leveraged Long funds
Same Category. FAS and TNA are both graded against the same 30 3x Leveraged Long funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
Our read on each fund
FASA
TNAC
In short
FAS Born in November 2008 with the banking system on fire, FAS aims to deliver three times the daily move of the Financial Select Sector Index. A one-day tool on roughly 80 financial stocks, built around a single-day objective.
TNA Three times the Russell 2000's daily move, run by the same fund since November 2008. In a category full of sector bets, this one is a straight leveraged play on US small caps.
Stated mandate
FAS The fund seeks a daily return equal to three times the performance of the Financial Select Sector Index, before fees and expenses. It is designed for a single-day objective rather than a multiple of the index’s cumulative return over longer periods.
TNA The fund seeks daily investment results, before fees and expenses, equal to 300% of the performance of the Russell 2000® Index. Its objective is daily and is not intended to deliver three times the index's cumulative return over periods longer than one day.
Why people hold it
Worth knowing
FAS vs TNA Holdings
How we measure overlap
Each holding counts at its smaller weight in the two funds, summed over the full Holdings. Sector, country and asset class use the same rule on each fund’s split. Cash, FX and derivative lines stay out of the counts. Two bond funds get no overlap figure.
FAS vs TNA Cost
Overpaying TNA vs FAS
$2,790
On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.
FAS 0.88%
$16,705
TNA 1.05%
$19,495
Cost over time
Year by year
| Year | FAS | TNA | Overpaying |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | $1,559 | $1,847 | $288 |
| 20 | $5,891 | $6,927 | $1,036 |
| 30 | $16,705 | $19,495 | $2,790 |
- 0.88%FAS, cheaper
- 1.05%TNA
- Middle half of 3x Leveraged Long funds
- Median 0.96%
FAS 4th cheapest of 30 funds
TNA 25th cheapest of 30 funds
FAS vs TNA Dividends
- FAS 8.87%, better
- TNA 0.31%
- FAS $14.62
- TNA $0.18
- FAS $1.00
- TNA $0.04
- FAS Sep 22, 2026
- TNA Sep 22, 2026
- FAS Sep 29, 2026
- TNA Sep 29, 2026
- FAS Quarterly
- TNA Quarterly
Distribution history
FAS vs TNA Risk
Fall from peak · 5 years
- FAS
- TNA
Risk facts
- Volatility
- FAS 46.3%, betterTNA 58.6%
- Return per unit of risk
- FAS 1.03, betterTNA 0.75
- Worst fall
- FAS −66.9%, betterTNA −82.4%
- Market sensitivity
- FAS 2.63TNA 3.84
Popular comparisons
- 0.88% · 0.78%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 1.05% · 0.78%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.88% · 0.94%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 1.05% · 0.94%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.88% · 0.75%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 1.05% · 0.75%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.