TZA ranks 4th and LABD 14th of 14 funds in the 3x Leveraged Inverse Category.
LABD vs TZA
0.0%by weight
TZA −0.08pt a year
1.07%0.99%
LABD 1.1×the volume
18.8M17.8M
TZA +16.7pt
−58.5%−41.8%
LABD vs TZA Performance
−96.2%−79.9%
- LABD 1.07%
- TZA 0.99%, better
- LABD $78M
- TZA $191M
- LABD −74.3%
- TZA −37.2%, better
- LABD 6.59%, better
- TZA 4.06%
- LABD 6
- TZA 7
- LABD 18.8M sh, better
- TZA 17.8M sh
- LABD $6.74
- TZA $44.49
ETF.net Grade
| Pillar | LABD | TZA |
|---|---|---|
| Cost | F5 | B64Higher |
| Mission | A75 | |
| Risk | F15 | C54Higher |
| Tradability | C46 | B63Higher |
| Holdings | ||
| Durability | C46 | B60Higher |
Rank among 3x Leveraged Inverse funds
Same Category. LABD 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
LABDF
TZAB
In short
LABD Biotech headlines cut both ways, and LABD takes the short side at triple speed: it aims for 300% of the inverse daily move in the S&P Biotechnology Select Industry Index, reset every close.
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
LABD The fund seeks daily investment results equal to 300% of the inverse performance of the S&P Biotechnology Select Industry 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
LABD vs TZA Holdings
How LABD and TZA differ
0.0%
Shared holdings make up 0.0% of LABD and 0.0% of TZA.
Level by level
- Holdings0.0%
Sector
No Sector split for LABD and TZA.
Country, concentration and asset class
Country
No country split for LABD and TZA.
Concentration
- LABD137.3%
- TZA159.7%
- LABD0
- TZA0
Asset class
- LABD
- Leveraged/Inverse
- TZA
- Leveraged/Inverse
Holdings
- Only in LABD0
- In both0
- Only in TZA0
Only in LABD
0 securities, 0.0% of LABD by weight
Only in TZA
0 securities, 0.0% of TZA by weight
Weight gaps
LABD and TZA share no securities.
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.
LABD vs TZA Cost
Overpaying LABD vs TZA
$1,290
On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.
LABD 1.07%
$19,815
TZA 0.99%
$18,525
Cost over time
Year by year
| Year | LABD | TZA | Overpaying |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | $1,881 | $1,746 | $135 |
| 20 | $7,046 | $6,565 | $481 |
| 30 | $19,815 | $18,525 | $1,290 |
- 1.07%LABD
- 0.99%TZA, cheaper
- Middle half of 3x Leveraged Inverse funds
- Median 1.02%
TZA 5th cheapest of 14 funds
LABD 13th cheapest of 14 funds
LABD vs TZA Dividends
- LABD 6.59%, better
- TZA 4.06%
- LABD $0.46
- TZA $1.90
- LABD $0.07
- TZA $0.47
- LABD Sep 22, 2026
- TZA Sep 22, 2026
- LABD Sep 29, 2026
- TZA Sep 29, 2026
- LABD Quarterly
- TZA Quarterly
Distribution history
LABD vs TZA Risk
Fall from peak · 5 years
- LABD
- TZA
Risk facts
- Volatility
- LABD 68.2%TZA 53.9%, better
- Return per unit of risk
- LABD −1.36TZA −1.01, better
- Worst fall
- LABD −99.2%TZA −92.1%, better
- Market sensitivity
- LABD −3.12TZA −3.25
Popular comparisons
- 1.07% · 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.
- 1.07% · 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.
- 1.07% · 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.