TMF vs. RSBA
TMF (Direxion Daily 20-Year Treasury Bull 3X) and RSBA (Return Stacked Bonds & Merger Arbitrage ETF) are both Leveraged Bonds funds. TMF is passively managed, while RSBA is actively managed. Over the past year, TMF returned 0.90% vs 4.65% for RSBA. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. TMF charges 1.09%/yr vs 0.96%/yr for RSBA.
Performance
TMF vs. RSBA - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, TMF achieves a -6.13% return, which is significantly lower than RSBA's -0.30% return.
TMF
- 1D
- -1.14%
- 1M
- 1.22%
- YTD
- -6.13%
- 6M
- -11.63%
- 1Y
- 0.90%
- 3Y*
- -20.78%
- 5Y*
- -30.52%
- 10Y*
- -16.56%
RSBA
- 1D
- -0.24%
- 1M
- 0.15%
- YTD
- -0.30%
- 6M
- -0.66%
- 1Y
- 4.65%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
TMF vs. RSBA - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
TMF Direxion Daily 20-Year Treasury Bull 3X | -6.13% | -2.94% | -6.68% |
RSBA Return Stacked Bonds & Merger Arbitrage ETF | -0.30% | 7.73% | -0.04% |
Correlation
The correlation between TMF and RSBA is 0.85, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.85 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 19, 2024 | 0.85 |
The correlation between TMF and RSBA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
TMF vs. RSBA — Risk / Return Rank
TMF
RSBA
TMF vs. RSBA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Direxion Daily 20-Year Treasury Bull 3X (TMF) and Return Stacked Bonds & Merger Arbitrage ETF (RSBA). 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.
| TMF | RSBA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.99 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.27 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.03 | 1.18 | -0.15 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.03 | 1.70 | -1.67 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.08 | 4.70 | -4.62 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| TMF | RSBA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.03 | 1.02 | -0.99 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.66 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | -0.38 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.14 | 1.00 | -1.13 |
Drawdowns
TMF vs. RSBA - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum TMF drawdown since its inception was -92.89%, which is greater than RSBA's maximum drawdown of -2.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TMF and RSBA.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| TMF | RSBA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -92.89% | -2.83% | -90.06% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -26.51% | -2.74% | -23.77% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -56.31% | — | — |
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 | -92.23% | -1.62% | -90.61% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -43.63% | -0.81% | -42.82% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 11.49% | 0.99% | +10.50% |
Volatility
TMF vs. RSBA - Volatility Comparison
Direxion Daily 20-Year Treasury Bull 3X (TMF) has a higher volatility of 8.09% compared to Return Stacked Bonds & Merger Arbitrage ETF (RSBA) at 1.37%. This indicates that TMF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RSBA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| TMF | RSBA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 8.09% | 1.37% | +6.72% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 19.01% | 3.27% | +15.74% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 28.76% | 4.59% | +24.17% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 46.75% | 5.08% | +41.67% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 43.92% | 5.08% | +38.84% |
TMF vs. RSBA - Expense Ratio Comparison
TMF has a 1.09% expense ratio, which is higher than RSBA's 0.96% expense ratio.
Dividends
TMF vs. RSBA - Dividend Comparison
TMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.15%, more than RSBA's 3.38% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RSBA Return Stacked Bonds & Merger Arbitrage ETF | 3.38% | 3.37% | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
TMF Direxion Daily 20-Year Treasury Bull 3X | 4.15% | 4.06% | 4.29% | 2.82% | 1.62% | 0.13% | 2.23% | 0.94% | 1.49% | 0.41% |
Frequently Asked Questions
TMF and RSBA have a correlation of 0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
TMF has higher volatility (8.09%) compared to RSBA (1.37%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TMF dropped -92.89% vs RSBA's -2.83%.
On 1-year performance, RSBA leads with 4.65% vs 0.90% for TMF. On fees, RSBA is cheaper at 0.96% per year. On volatility, RSBA has been the lower-risk option at 1.37%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, RSBA has performed better with a 4.65% return vs 0.90%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
RSBA is cheaper with a 0.96% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for TMF.
TMF has the higher dividend yield at 4.15%, compared with 3.38% for RSBA.
They also come from different issuers: Direxion and Return Stacked. Their fees differ too: 1.09% for TMF and 0.96% for RSBA.
RSBA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.02 vs 0.03), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.
Find the right allocation for TMF and RSBA
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