SCOW vs. TNA
SCOW (Pacer S&P SmallCap 600 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF) and TNA (Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares) are both exchange-traded funds - SCOW is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the S&P SmallCap 600 Quality FCF Aristocrats Index, while TNA is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index (300% Daily). Both are passively managed. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. SCOW charges 0.59%/yr vs 1.05%/yr for TNA.
Performance
SCOW vs. TNA - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, SCOW achieves a 7.34% return, which is significantly lower than TNA's 56.90% return.
SCOW
- 1D
- 0.04%
- 1M
- 1.82%
- YTD
- 7.34%
- 6M
- 3.15%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
TNA
- 1D
- -3.11%
- 1M
- 9.59%
- YTD
- 56.90%
- 6M
- 45.88%
- 1Y
- 125.39%
- 3Y*
- 32.32%
- 5Y*
- -5.98%
- 10Y*
- 9.70%
SCOW vs. TNA - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
SCOW Pacer S&P SmallCap 600 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF | 7.34% | -2.05% |
TNA Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares | 56.90% | 7.94% |
Correlation
The correlation between SCOW and TNA is 0.75, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 28, 2025 | 0.75 |
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
SCOW vs. TNA — Risk / Return Rank
SCOW
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
TNA
SCOW vs. TNA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer S&P SmallCap 600 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF (SCOW) and Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares (TNA). 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.
| SCOW | TNA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.31 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 3.88 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 12.72 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
SCOW vs. TNA - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum SCOW drawdown since its inception was -10.09%, smaller than the maximum TNA drawdown of -88.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SCOW and TNA.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| SCOW | TNA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -10.09% | -88.09% | +78.00% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -32.53% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -65.78% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -82.36% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -88.09% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.19% | -33.64% | +32.45% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.05% | -33.92% | +30.87% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 9.89% | — |
Volatility
SCOW vs. TNA - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| SCOW | TNA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 19.82% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 42.69% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.96% | 58.76% | -41.80% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.96% | 67.57% | -50.61% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.96% | 68.50% | -51.54% |
SCOW vs. TNA - Expense Ratio Comparison
SCOW has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is lower than TNA's 1.05% expense ratio.
Dividends
SCOW vs. TNA - Dividend Comparison
SCOW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.39%, more than TNA's 0.38% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SCOW Pacer S&P SmallCap 600 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF | 0.39% | 0.17% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
TNA Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares | 0.38% | 0.78% | 0.93% | 1.27% | 0.31% | 0.06% | 0.03% | 0.44% | 0.36% | 0.15% |
Frequently Asked Questions
SCOW and TNA have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, SCOW is cheaper at 0.59% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
SCOW is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 1.05% for TNA.
SCOW and TNA have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.39%.
SCOW is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while TNA is Leveraged Equities. SCOW tracks S&P SmallCap 600 Quality FCF Aristocrats Index, while TNA tracks Russell 2000 Index (300% Daily). They also come from different issuers: Pacer and Direxion. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for SCOW and 1.05% for TNA.
Find the right allocation for SCOW and TNA
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