CSCS vs. TMF
CSCS (Direxion Daily CSCO Bear 1X Shares) and TMF (Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CSCS is a Inverse Equities fund managed by Direxion, while TMF is a Leveraged Bonds fund tracking the ICE U.S. Treasury 20+ Year Bond Index (300%). Over the past year, CSCS returned -46.14% vs -0.04% for TMF. At a correlation of -0.01, they often move in opposite directions. CSCS charges 1.00%/yr vs 1.01%/yr for TMF.
Performance
CSCS vs. TMF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CSCS achieves a -39.33% return, which is significantly lower than TMF's 0.08% return.
CSCS
- 1D
- 0.93%
- 1M
- 0.03%
- YTD
- -39.33%
- 6M
- -38.37%
- 1Y
- -46.14%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
TMF
- 1D
- 3.90%
- 1M
- 10.18%
- YTD
- 0.08%
- 6M
- -2.86%
- 1Y
- -0.04%
- 3Y*
- -19.78%
- 5Y*
- -30.25%
- 10Y*
- -16.47%
CSCS vs. TMF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
CSCS Direxion Daily CSCO Bear 1X Shares | -39.33% | -11.22% |
TMF Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF | 0.08% | -0.12% |
Correlation
The correlation between CSCS and TMF is -0.01, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 25, 2025 | -0.01 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
CSCS vs. TMF — Risk / Return Rank
CSCS
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
TMF
CSCS vs. TMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Direxion Daily CSCO Bear 1X Shares (CSCS) and Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF (TMF). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| CSCS | TMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.02 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | -0.00 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | -0.00 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CSCS vs. TMF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CSCS drawdown since its inception was -51.58%, smaller than the maximum TMF drawdown of -92.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CSCS and TMF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CSCS | TMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -51.58% | -92.89% | +41.31% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -51.58% | -26.51% | -25.07% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -56.09% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -88.81% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -92.89% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -47.68% | -91.71% | +44.03% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -15.57% | -43.78% | +28.21% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 12.28% | — |
Volatility
CSCS vs. TMF - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CSCS | TMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 7.26% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 19.68% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 31.11% | 28.15% | +2.96% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 31.11% | 46.63% | -15.52% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 31.11% | 43.87% | -12.76% |
CSCS vs. TMF - Expense Ratio Comparison
CSCS has a 1.00% expense ratio, which is lower than TMF's 1.01% expense ratio.
Dividends
CSCS vs. TMF - Dividend Comparison
CSCS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.70%, more than TMF's 3.95% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CSCS Direxion Daily CSCO Bear 1X Shares | 4.70% | 1.72% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
TMF Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF | 3.95% | 4.06% | 4.29% | 2.82% | 1.62% | 0.13% | 2.23% | 0.94% | 1.49% | 0.41% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CSCS and TMF have a correlation of -0.01, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On 1-year performance, TMF leads with -0.04% vs -46.14% for CSCS. On fees, CSCS is cheaper at 1.00% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, TMF has performed better with a -0.04% return vs -46.14%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
CSCS is cheaper with a 1.00% expense ratio, compared with 1.01% for TMF.
CSCS has the higher dividend yield at 4.70%, compared with 3.95% for TMF.
CSCS is categorized as Inverse Equities, while TMF is Leveraged Bonds. Their fees differ too: 1.00% for CSCS and 1.01% for TMF.
Find the right allocation for CSCS and TMF
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer