TNA vs. RZG

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

TNA (Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares) and RZG (Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - TNA is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index (300%), while RZG is a Small Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the S&P Small Cap 600 Pure Growth. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, TNA returned 7.99%/yr vs 9.73%/yr for RZG. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. TNA charges 1.14%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for RZG.

Performance

TNA vs. RZG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares (TNA) and Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF (RZG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TNA achieves a 53.14% return, which is significantly higher than RZG's 20.35% return. Over the past 10 years, TNA has underperformed RZG with an annualized return of 7.99%, while RZG has yielded a comparatively higher 9.73% annualized return.

TNA

• 1D: 4.51%
• 1M: 8.55%
• YTD: 53.14%
• 6M: 43.09%
• 1Y: 130.31%
• 3Y*: 31.74%
• 5Y*: -5.38%
• 10Y*: 7.99%

RZG

• 1D: 1.87%
• 1M: 0.23%
• YTD: 20.35%
• 6M: 18.94%
• 1Y: 33.26%
• 3Y*: 18.48%
• 5Y*: 5.24%
• 10Y*: 9.73%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

TNA vs. RZG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
TNA Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares	53.14%	9.82%	7.21%	26.24%	-62.48%	27.88%	-7.82%	71.88%	-39.89%	39.15%
RZG Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF	20.35%	10.22%	9.84%	19.15%	-29.00%	21.01%	17.76%	14.25%	-8.70%	19.18%

Correlation

The correlation between TNA and RZG is 0.92, 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	0.92
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.93
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.94
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 20, 2008	0.92

The correlation between TNA and RZG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

TNA vs. RZG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TNA	RZG
Industrials	17.5%	18.2%
Technology	16.9%	16.8%
Healthcare	16.5%	22.0%
Financial Services	15.9%	15.0%
Consumer Cyclical	8.4%	8.8%
Real Estate	6.2%	7.6%
Energy	6.2%	3.0%
Basic Materials	4.8%	0.4%
Utilities	2.9%	0.4%
Communication Services	2.5%	1.9%
Consumer Defensive	2.4%	5.9%

Return for Risk

TNA vs. RZG — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

TNA

TNA Risk / Return Rank: 67
TNA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
TNA Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
TNA Omega Ratio Rank: 52
TNA Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
TNA Martin Ratio Rank: 72

RZG

RZG Risk / Return Rank: 61
RZG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
RZG Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
RZG Omega Ratio Rank: 50
RZG Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
RZG Martin Ratio Rank: 70

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

TNA vs. RZG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares (TNA) and Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF (RZG). 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.

	TNA	RZG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.30	1.79	+0.50
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.72	2.65	+0.07
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.31	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.03	3.87	+0.16
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.27	12.94	+0.33
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

TNA vs. RZG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TNA Sharpe Ratio is 2.30, which is comparable to the RZG Sharpe Ratio of 1.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TNA and RZG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	TNA	RZG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.30	1.79	+0.50
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.08	0.23	-0.31
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.12	0.40	-0.28
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.23	0.38	-0.14

Drawdowns

TNA vs. RZG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TNA drawdown since its inception was -88.09%, which is greater than RZG's maximum drawdown of -58.52%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TNA and RZG.

Drawdown Indicators

	TNA	RZG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-88.09%	-58.52%	-29.57%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-32.53%	-8.63%	-23.90%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-65.78%	-25.73%	-40.05%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-82.36%	-38.33%	-44.03%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-88.09%	-54.02%	-34.07%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-35.23%	-0.09%	-35.14%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-33.90%	-12.12%	-21.78%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.86%	2.58%	+7.28%

Volatility

TNA vs. RZG - Volatility Comparison

Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares (TNA) has a higher volatility of 17.02% compared to Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF (RZG) at 4.80%. This indicates that TNA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RZG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TNA	RZG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	17.02%	4.80%	+12.22%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	40.45%	13.68%	+26.77%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	57.06%	18.63%	+38.43%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	67.34%	22.99%	+44.35%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	68.42%	24.65%	+43.77%

TNA vs. RZG - Expense Ratio Comparison

TNA has a 1.14% expense ratio, which is higher than RZG's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

TNA vs. RZG - Dividend Comparison

TNA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.39%, less than RZG's 0.41% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
RZG Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF	0.41%	0.37%	0.95%	1.43%	1.59%	0.22%	0.49%	0.70%	0.46%	0.44%	0.65%	0.70%
TNA Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares	0.39%	0.78%	0.93%	1.27%	0.31%	0.06%	0.03%	0.44%	0.36%	0.15%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TNA and RZG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, TNA and RZG move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, TNA or RZG?

TNA has higher volatility (17.02%) compared to RZG (4.80%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TNA dropped -88.09% vs RZG's -58.52%.

Which ETF is better, TNA or RZG?

On 10-year performance, RZG leads with 9.73% vs 7.99% for TNA. On fees, RZG is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, RZG has been the lower-risk option at 4.80%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TNA or RZG?

Over the 10-year period, RZG has performed better with a 9.73% return vs 7.99%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TNA or RZG?

RZG is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 1.14% for TNA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, TNA or RZG?

RZG has the higher dividend yield at 0.41%, compared with 0.39% for TNA.

What is the main difference between TNA and RZG?

TNA is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while RZG is Small Cap Growth Equities. TNA tracks Russell 2000 Index (300%), while RZG tracks S&P Small Cap 600 Pure Growth. They also come from different issuers: Direxion and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 1.14% for TNA and 0.35% for RZG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TNA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.30 vs 1.79), 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.