TZA ranks 4th and SMDD 9th of 14 funds in the 3x Leveraged Inverse Category.
SMDD vs TZA
SMDD −0.04pt a year
0.95%0.99%
TZA 1677.9×the volume
10.6K17.8M
SMDD +2.4pt
−39.4%−41.8%
SMDD vs TZA Performance
−79.1%−79.9%
- SMDD 0.95%, better
- TZA 0.99%
- SMDD $2M
- TZA $191M
- SMDD −32.1%, better
- TZA −37.2%
- SMDD 3.82%
- TZA 4.06%, better
- SMDD 1
- TZA 7
- SMDD 10.6K sh
- TZA 17.8M sh, better
- SMDD $8.74
- TZA $44.49
ETF.net Grade
| Pillar | SMDD | TZA |
|---|---|---|
| Cost | A84Higher | B64 |
| Mission | A75 | |
| Risk | B66Higher | C54 |
| Tradability | D28 | B63Higher |
| Holdings | ||
| Durability | D39 | B60Higher |
Rank among 3x Leveraged Inverse funds
Same Category. SMDD 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
SMDDC
TZAB
In short
SMDD The 3x bear trade on the market's forgotten middle. SMDD aims to deliver three times the inverse of the S&P MidCap 400's daily move, at 0.95% net of a waiver through September 30, 2027, and no peer in its category points at the same index.
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
SMDD The fund seeks inverse daily exposure equal to three times the daily decline of the S&P MidCap 400.
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
SMDD 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.
SMDD vs TZA Cost
Overpaying TZA vs SMDD
$656
On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.
SMDD 0.95%
$17,869
TZA 0.99%
$18,525
Cost over time
Year by year
| Year | SMDD | TZA | Overpaying |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | $1,678 | $1,746 | $68 |
| 20 | $6,322 | $6,565 | $243 |
| 30 | $17,869 | $18,525 | $656 |
- 0.95%SMDD, cheaper
- 0.99%TZA
- Middle half of 3x Leveraged Inverse funds
- Median 1.02%
SMDD 2nd cheapest of 14 funds
TZA 5th cheapest of 14 funds
SMDD vs TZA Dividends
- SMDD 3.82%
- TZA 4.06%, better
- SMDD $0.33
- TZA $1.90
- SMDD $0.07
- TZA $0.47
- SMDD Sep 23, 2026
- TZA Sep 22, 2026
- SMDD Sep 29, 2026
- TZA Sep 29, 2026
- SMDD Quarterly
- TZA Quarterly
Distribution history
SMDD vs TZA Risk
Fall from peak · 5 years
- SMDD
- TZA
Risk facts
- Volatility
- SMDD 44.0%, betterTZA 53.9%
- Return per unit of risk
- SMDD −1.04TZA −1.01, better
- Worst fall
- SMDD −89.3%, betterTZA −92.1%
- Market sensitivity
- SMDD −2.86TZA −3.25
Popular comparisons
- 0.95% · 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.
- 0.95% · 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.
- 0.95% · 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.