FAS ranks 3rd and WEBL 14th of 30 funds in the 3x Leveraged Long Category.
FAS vs WEBL
FAS −0.08pt a year
0.88%0.96%
FAS 2.1×the volume
413K194K
FAS +29.1pt
+5.6%−23.5%
FAS vs WEBL Performance
+31.4%−73.8%
- FAS 0.88%, better
- WEBL 0.96%
- FAS $2.17B
- WEBL $74M
- FAS +12.3%, better
- WEBL −34.2%
- FAS 8.87%, better
- WEBL 0.21%
- FAS 87
- WEBL 47
- FAS 413K sh, better
- WEBL 194K sh
- FAS $168.18
- WEBL $24.21
ETF.net Grade
| Pillar | FAS | WEBL |
|---|---|---|
| Cost | A92Higher | B62 |
| Mission | ||
| Risk | B69Higher | D31 |
| Tradability | A73Higher | C41 |
| Holdings | ||
| Durability | B66Higher | D32 |
Rank among 3x Leveraged Long funds
Same Category. FAS and WEBL are both graded against the same 30 3x Leveraged Long funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
Our read on each fund
FASA
WEBLC
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.
WEBL Most 3x funds crank up the Dow or the Nasdaq. WEBL aims at a narrower target: 300% of the daily move of the Dow Jones Internet Composite, a basket of US internet names. Direxion has run it since 2019.
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.
WEBL The fund seeks daily investment results equal to 300% of the performance of the Dow Jones Internet Composite Index, before fees and expenses.
Why people hold it
Worth knowing
FAS vs WEBL 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 WEBL Cost
Overpaying WEBL vs FAS
$1,329
On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.
FAS 0.88%
$16,705
WEBL 0.96%
$18,034
Cost over time
Year by year
| Year | FAS | WEBL | Overpaying |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | $1,559 | $1,695 | $136 |
| 20 | $5,891 | $6,383 | $492 |
| 30 | $16,705 | $18,034 | $1,329 |
- 0.88%FAS, cheaper
- 0.96%WEBL
- Middle half of 3x Leveraged Long funds
- Median 0.96%
FAS 4th cheapest of 30 funds
WEBL 11th cheapest of 30 funds
FAS vs WEBL Dividends
- FAS 8.87%, better
- WEBL 0.21%
- FAS $14.62
- WEBL $0.05
- FAS $1.00
- WEBL $0.0041
- FAS Sep 22, 2026
- WEBL Sep 22, 2026
- FAS Sep 29, 2026
- WEBL Sep 29, 2026
- FAS Quarterly
- WEBL Quarterly
Distribution history
FAS vs WEBL Risk
Fall from peak · 5 years
- FAS
- WEBL
Risk facts
- Volatility
- FAS 46.3%, betterWEBL 62.2%
- Return per unit of risk
- FAS 1.03, betterWEBL 0.73
- Worst fall
- FAS −66.9%, betterWEBL −94.2%
- Market sensitivity
- FAS 2.63WEBL 4.11
Popular comparisons
- 0.88% · 0.78%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.96% · 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.
- 0.96% · 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.
- 0.96% · 0.75%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.