METU vs XAUG

METU vs XAUG

Which is better, METU or XAUG?

Each has led over a different period.

XAUG has a lower expense ratio. METU led over the full window, XAUG over 1Y.

Lower Fees: XAUGHigher Returns: split

MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.

Side-by-Side Comparison

MetricMETUXAUG
Expense Ratio1.02%0.85%Best
AUM$506M$26M
Dividend Yield2.70%0.00%
Holdings2012
YTD Return+2.89%+6.36%Best
1Y Return-17.61%+8.57%Best
3Y Return (annualized)-+9.93%
Volatility (annualized)70.0%3.8%Best
Max Drawdown-63.9%-8.7%Best
$10,000 over 2.4 years$12,474Best$12,211
Fund FamilyDirexion Shares ETF TrustFirst Trust Portfolios (US)
CategoryAlternativeAlternative
StyleMulti AlternativeMulti Alternative
InceptionJun 5, 2024Aug 18, 2023

Not shown on this pair: 5Y Return (annualized), Top 10 Weight.

Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.4 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 5, 2024 to Oct 14, 2026 (2.4 years).

METU vs XAUG growth

Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 2.4 years both funds cover.

Compare METU against instead:METU vs SPYMETU vs QQQMETU vs VOOMETU vs VTIXAUG against:XAUG vs VXUS

METU vs XAUG Performance

Direxion Daily META Bull 2X ETF (METU) is an ETF from Direxion Shares ETF Trust and FT Vest US Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - August (XAUG) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US). Over the past year METU returned -17.61% while XAUG returned +8.57%. Year to date, METU is up 2.89% versus a gain of 6.36% for XAUG.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns

METU has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 70.0% compared with 3.8% for XAUG. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.

The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -63.9% for METU and -8.7% for XAUG. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.

The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.52. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.

Fees and Cost Over Time

METU charges 1.02% per year while XAUG charges 0.85%. On a $10,000 position that is $102 vs $85 annually, a gap of $17 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, METU currently yields 2.70% against 0.00% for XAUG.

You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.

Whichever of METU and XAUG you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.

METUXAUG

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, METU or XAUG?

METU has an expense ratio of 1.02% while XAUG charges 0.85%. XAUG is the cheaper option, by $17 a year on a $10,000 investment.

Which performed better, METU or XAUG?

Over the past year METU returned -17.61% vs +8.57% for XAUG, so XAUG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), METU annualized +9.65% vs +8.68% for XAUG. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which is riskier, METU or XAUG?

METU has been the more volatile fund at 70.0% annualized versus 3.8% for XAUG. Worst drawdown: METU -63.9% vs XAUG -8.7%.

Should I hold both METU and XAUG?

METU and XAUG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.52, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which pays a higher dividend, METU or XAUG?

METU yields 2.70% while XAUG yields 0.00%, so METU currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is XAUG better than METU?

XAUG has a lower expense ratio. METU led over the full window, XAUG over 1Y. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.