TZA ranks 4th and WEBS 13th of 14 funds in the 3x Leveraged Inverse Category.
TZA vs WEBS
TZA −0.08pt a year
0.99%1.07%
TZA 367.3×the volume
17.8M48.5K
TZA +4.4pt
−27.5%−31.9%
TZA vs WEBS Performance
−79.9%−85.4%
- TZA 0.99%, better
- WEBS 1.07%
- TZA $191M
- WEBS $7M
- TZA −37.2%
- WEBS +5.6%, better
- TZA 4.06%, better
- WEBS 3.27%
- TZA 7
- WEBS 4
- TZA 17.8M sh, better
- WEBS 48.5K sh
- TZA $44.49
- WEBS $16.16
ETF.net Grade
| Pillar | TZA | WEBS |
|---|---|---|
| Cost | B64Higher | F5 |
| Mission | A75 | |
| Risk | C54 | B59Higher |
| Tradability | B63Higher | F24 |
| Holdings | ||
| Durability | B60Higher | F19 |
Rank among 3x Leveraged Inverse funds
Same Category. TZA and WEBS are both graded against the same 14 3x Leveraged Inverse funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
Our read on each fund
TZAB
WEBSF
In short
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.
WEBS Most triple-inverse ETFs short the whole market. WEBS aims at 3x the inverse of one day's move in a 40-stock Dow Jones internet index, at 1.07% net of a waiver through September 1, 2027.
Stated mandate
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.
WEBS The fund seeks daily investment results equal to 300% of the inverse performance of the Dow Jones Internet Composite Index, before fees and expenses.
Why people hold it
Worth knowing
TZA vs WEBS 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.
TZA vs WEBS Cost
Overpaying WEBS vs TZA
$1,290
On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.
TZA 0.99%
$18,525
WEBS 1.07%
$19,815
Cost over time
Year by year
| Year | TZA | WEBS | Overpaying |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | $1,746 | $1,881 | $135 |
| 20 | $6,565 | $7,046 | $481 |
| 30 | $18,525 | $19,815 | $1,290 |
- 0.99%TZA, cheaper
- 1.07%WEBS
- Middle half of 3x Leveraged Inverse funds
- Median 1.02%
TZA 5th cheapest of 14 funds
WEBS 13th cheapest of 14 funds
TZA vs WEBS Dividends
- TZA 4.06%, better
- WEBS 3.27%
- TZA $1.90
- WEBS $0.58
- TZA $0.47
- WEBS $0.19
- TZA Sep 22, 2026
- WEBS Sep 22, 2026
- TZA Sep 29, 2026
- WEBS Sep 29, 2026
- TZA Quarterly
- WEBS Quarterly
Distribution history
TZA vs WEBS Risk
Fall from peak · 5 years
- TZA
- WEBS
Risk facts
- Volatility
- TZA 53.9%, betterWEBS 57.3%
- Return per unit of risk
- TZA −1.01WEBS −0.95, better
- Worst fall
- TZA −92.1%, betterWEBS −97.5%
- Market sensitivity
- TZA −3.25WEBS −3.47
Popular comparisons
- 0.99% · 0.94%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 1.07% · 0.94%
- 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.
- 1.07% · 0.95%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.