TZA ranks 4th and FAZ 6th of 14 funds in the 3x Leveraged Inverse Category.
FAZ vs TZA
TZA −0.04pt a year
1.03%0.99%
TZA 19.2×the volume
930K17.8M
TZA +2.2pt
−44.0%−41.8%
FAZ vs TZA Performance
−79.4%−79.9%
- FAZ 1.03%
- TZA 0.99%, better
- FAZ $86M
- TZA $191M
- FAZ −22.4%, better
- TZA −37.2%
- FAZ 2.98%
- TZA 4.06%, better
- FAZ 5
- TZA 7
- FAZ 930K sh
- TZA 17.8M sh, better
- FAZ $32.80
- TZA $44.49
ETF.net Grade
| Pillar | FAZ | TZA |
|---|---|---|
| Cost | C42 | B64Higher |
| Mission | A75 | |
| Risk | B68Higher | C54 |
| Tradability | B61 | B63Higher |
| Holdings | ||
| Durability | C53 | B60Higher |
Rank among 3x Leveraged Inverse funds
Same Category. FAZ and TZA are both graded against the same 14 3x Leveraged Inverse funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
Our read on each fund
FAZC
TZAB
In short
FAZ Launched in November 2008, as the banking system was cracking, FAZ aims for 300% of the inverse daily move of the Financial Select Sector Index. A triple-strength short on financials that starts fresh every trading day.
TZA Born in the wreckage of 2008, TZA aims to move three times the inverse of the Russell 2000's daily swing. A heavily traded way to press a bearish small-cap view, with a daily reset that makes it a tool for days, not quarters.
Stated mandate
FAZ The fund seeks daily investment results equal to 300% of the inverse performance of the Financial Select Sector Index, before fees and expenses.
TZA The Fund seeks daily inverse leveraged investment results equal to negative three times the daily performance of the Russell 2000 Index. Its leverage makes it potentially riskier than nonleveraged alternatives.
Why people hold it
Worth knowing
FAZ vs TZA 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.
FAZ vs TZA Cost
Overpaying FAZ vs TZA
$648
On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.
FAZ 1.03%
$19,173
TZA 0.99%
$18,525
Cost over time
Year by year
| Year | FAZ | TZA | Overpaying |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | $1,814 | $1,746 | $68 |
| 20 | $6,807 | $6,565 | $242 |
| 30 | $19,173 | $18,525 | $648 |
- 1.03%FAZ
- 0.99%TZA, cheaper
- Middle half of 3x Leveraged Inverse funds
- Median 1.02%
TZA 5th cheapest of 14 funds
FAZ 8th cheapest of 14 funds
FAZ vs TZA Dividends
- FAZ 2.98%
- TZA 4.06%, better
- FAZ $1.00
- TZA $1.90
- FAZ $0.20
- TZA $0.47
- FAZ Sep 22, 2026
- TZA Sep 22, 2026
- FAZ Sep 29, 2026
- TZA Sep 29, 2026
- FAZ Quarterly
- TZA Quarterly
Distribution history
FAZ vs TZA Risk
Fall from peak · 5 years
- FAZ
- TZA
Risk facts
- Volatility
- FAZ 42.2%, betterTZA 53.9%
- Return per unit of risk
- FAZ −1.25TZA −1.01, better
- Worst fall
- FAZ −89.3%, betterTZA −92.1%
- Market sensitivity
- FAZ −2.11TZA −3.25
Popular comparisons
- 1.03% · 0.94%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.99% · 0.94%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 1.03% · 0.95%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.99% · 0.95%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 1.03% · 0.95%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.99% · 0.95%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.