TZA ranks 4th and YANG 8th of 14 funds in the 3x Leveraged Inverse Category.
TZA vs YANG
TZA −0.04pt a year
0.99%1.03%
TZA 26.4×the volume
17.8M676K
YANG +6.7pt
−41.8%−35.1%
TZA vs YANG Performance
−79.9%−88.1%
- TZA 0.99%, better
- YANG 1.03%
- TZA $191M
- YANG $83M
- TZA −37.2%
- YANG +53.4%, better
- TZA 4.06%, better
- YANG 2.83%
- TZA 7
- YANG 4
- TZA 17.8M sh, better
- YANG 676K sh
- TZA $44.49
- YANG $36.00
ETF.net Grade
| Pillar | TZA | YANG |
|---|---|---|
| Cost | B64Higher | C42 |
| Mission | A75 | |
| Risk | C54 | A70Higher |
| Tradability | B63Higher | D27 |
| Holdings | ||
| Durability | B60Higher | C53 |
Rank among 3x Leveraged Inverse funds
Same Category. TZA and YANG are both graded against the same 14 3x Leveraged Inverse funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
Our read on each fund
TZAB
YANGC
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.
YANG The blunt instrument for a rough day in Chinese equities. YANG aims for -300% of the FTSE China 50's daily move, resets every night, and has been running that playbook since 2009. Built for a day, not a decade.
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.
YANG The fund seeks daily investment results, before fees and expenses, equal to -300% of the FTSE China 50 Index. Its objective applies to a single day and is not intended to provide negative three-times cumulative performance over longer periods.
Why people hold it
Worth knowing
TZA vs YANG 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 YANG Cost
Overpaying YANG vs TZA
$648
On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.
TZA 0.99%
$18,525
YANG 1.03%
$19,173
Cost over time
Year by year
| Year | TZA | YANG | Overpaying |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | $1,746 | $1,814 | $68 |
| 20 | $6,565 | $6,807 | $242 |
| 30 | $18,525 | $19,173 | $648 |
- 0.99%TZA, cheaper
- 1.03%YANG
- Middle half of 3x Leveraged Inverse funds
- Median 1.02%
TZA 5th cheapest of 14 funds
YANG 8th cheapest of 14 funds
TZA vs YANG Dividends
- TZA 4.06%, better
- YANG 2.83%
- TZA $1.90
- YANG $0.98
- TZA $0.47
- YANG $0.27
- TZA Sep 22, 2026
- YANG Sep 22, 2026
- TZA Sep 29, 2026
- YANG Sep 29, 2026
- TZA Quarterly
- YANG Quarterly
Distribution history
TZA vs YANG Risk
Fall from peak · 5 years
- TZA
- YANG
Risk facts
- Volatility
- TZA 53.9%, betterYANG 58.3%
- Return per unit of risk
- TZA −1.01YANG −0.77, better
- Worst fall
- TZA −92.1%, betterYANG −97.4%
- Market sensitivity
- TZA −3.25YANG −0.96
Popular comparisons
- 0.99% · 0.94%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 1.03% · 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.
- 1.03% · 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.