A single-day wipeout needs the Nasdaq-100 down 33% in one session, and US circuit breakers halt the market at −20% — so a one-day zero is extremely unlikely. But "down to 5% of peak after a string of bad weeks, and a decade underwater" needs no circuit breaker at all. The practical risk is the second one.

Don't backtests show holding TQQQ always wins?

Backtests starting after 2010 do — that decade was a near-one-way Nasdaq bull. Start the clock in 2000 and a simulated 3× fund doesn't break even for well over a decade. Backtest conclusions are extremely sensitive to the start date, which is exactly why this tool uses random paths instead of one historical stretch.

QLD is the 2× version: much gentler decay, much more recoverable drawdowns, far more forgiving as a long-term hold. TQQQ is closer to a swing/trend instrument. Several studies put the long-run optimal leverage for US indices around 2× — the QLD page runs the same simulation.

Can I dollar-cost average into TQQQ?

You can, but DCA isn't a talisman: it spreads entry points and changes nothing about a 3× product's path dependence — in a 2000-style multi-year bear you'd contribute all the way down. The decision that actually matters is the cap on TQQQ's share of your total assets.

Can TQQQ get delisted or reverse split?

TQQQ is among the largest leveraged ETFs in existence, so liquidation is unlikely; after deep drawdowns issuers do use reverse splits to keep the share price tradable — your value is unchanged, share count shrinks. The real worry isn't delisting, it's the long climb back from −80%.

← Back to the full Leveraged ETF Calculator

TQQQ: Simulating a Long-Term Hold of 3× Nasdaq

TQQQ might be the most argued-about leveraged ETF in the world: a cheat code in bull markets, and down nearly 80% from its peak in 2022. This page loads 3× leverage and the 0.84% expense ratio into the simulator with QQQ's 10-year data, to show what "holding TQQQ" actually is as a bet.

Leveraged ETF Calculator

Compare how much of a leveraged ETF to hold versus its plain 1× index — five splits from all-leverage to all-index, rebalanced monthly, quarterly or yearly. See CAGR, drawdown and risk-adjusted return, volatility decay included.

Underlying index

Index

Expected return (CAGR)The 1× index's compound annual growth rate. The leveraged fund is built from this — you don't enter it directly.

VolatilityHow wildly the index's returns swing year to year. This is the engine of volatility decay: the higher it is, the more a 2×/3× fund bleeds in choppy markets.

Leverage & rebalancing

Leverage factorThe leverage of the risky fund, used in both the all-in hold and the blend. Real products offer 2× or 3×.

Rebalancing frequencyHow often each split is traded back to its target weights. Higher frequency tracks the target exposure more tightly and “buys low, sells high” more often, but in practice also means more trading costs and taxes (not modelled here).

The tool compares five fixed splits — 100/0, 75/25, 50/50, 25/75, 0/100 — of this leveraged fund and its plain 1× index, all rebalanced yearly.

Capital & horizon

Starting capital

Holding period

yrs

Fund costs

Expense ratioThe fund's annual fee, charged on the whole position. Leveraged ETFs typically run 0.9–1.0%, far above a plain index fund's ~0.05%.

Financing rateThe annual interest a leveraged fund pays to borrow its extra exposure. Charged on the borrowed (L−1)× portion, so it hits 3× harder than 2× and never touches 1×. Tracks short-term rates.

Strategy comparison

fund / 1×

100/0

3.0×

75/25

2.5×

50/50

2.0×

25/75

1.5×

0/100

1.0×

Median ending value

3.2M

2.5M

1.8M

1.2M

655K

CAGR

41.5%

38.2%

33.5%

27.7%

20.7%

Volatility

57.1%

48.1%

38.9%

29.4%

19.0%

Max drawdownMedian worst peak-to-trough fall along the simulated paths, at daily resolution. This is the loss you'd have to sit through — leverage multiplies it, rebalancing into cash trims it.

−70.2%

−62.0%

−52.3%

−40.8%

−27.8%

SharpeReturn per unit of volatility (CAGR ÷ volatility, risk-free rate 0). A rebalanced blend often scores higher than all-in leverage, because it sheds risk faster than return.

0.73

0.79

0.86

0.94

1.09

CalmarReturn per unit of max drawdown (CAGR ÷ max drawdown). A drawdown-based cousin of Sharpe — how much growth you earn for the worst fall you endure.

0.59

0.62

0.64

0.68

0.74

Unlucky (P10)

302K

348K

356K

337K

300K

Lucky (P90)

35.7M

19.9M

10.1M

4.3M

1.5M

Each column is a split between the 3× fund and its plain 1× index (leveraged % / index %), rebalanced yearly. Effective exposure = leveraged share × 3 + index share × 1 (shown under each split); 0/100 is the plain 1× index.

Median growth by strategy

Over 10 years, going 100% into the 3× QQQ — Nasdaq 100 fund reaches a median 3.2M; a 50/50 split with the 1× index reaches 1.8M, and the plain 1× index 655K — every column rebalanced yearly.

The cost of leverage is drawdown: 100/0 typically falls 70.2% peak-to-trough, versus 52.3% for the 50/50 split.

Based on 500 simulated paths with daily-reset leverage. A simplified lognormal model, not a forecast: real markets have fatter tails, jumps, and shifting volatility, all of which hit leverage harder. Treat as rough odds, not promises.

What this ticker works out to

Under the prefilled assumptions, going 100% TQQQ for 10 years lands at a median value of about 3.2M (≈41.5% annualised) — with a median max drawdown of −70.2% along the way. A 50/50 blend with the plain 1× index comes to about 1.8M with the drawdown cut to −52.3%; skipping leverage entirely (pure 1× index) gives about 655K at −27.8%.

Monte Carlo simulation seeded with the underlying index's 10-year CAGR and estimated volatility. That decade was a strong bull run — shave a few points off the return and look again.

How to read this result

3× is a different animal, not a bigger number: volatility decay scales with the *square* of volatility, so 3× decays about 2.25× as fast as 2×. With the Nasdaq-100 at ~19% annual volatility, TQQQ's path volatility runs near 60% — a 2022-style −80% drawdown is designed-in behaviour, not an accident. That's why the middle columns matter most: a small slice of TQQQ next to a big slice of the 1× index often captures most of the excess return at a fraction of the drawdown. All-in has the highest median, but its 10th percentile is usually gruesome — and the median is not a promise.

Good fit: treating TQQQ as a satellite — say 10–25% next to QQQ or cash — to get leverage's convexity without one deep drawdown ending the whole plan.

Watch out: recovering from −80% takes +400%. A dot-com-scale bear (Nasdaq −78%) takes a 3× product to effectively zero with a decade-plus climb back. The prefilled 20.7% CAGR comes from the strongest tech decade in history.

Common questions

Can TQQQ go to zero?: A single-day wipeout needs the Nasdaq-100 down 33% in one session, and US circuit breakers halt the market at −20% — so a one-day zero is extremely unlikely. But "down to 5% of peak after a string of bad weeks, and a decade underwater" needs no circuit breaker at all. The practical risk is the second one.
Don't backtests show holding TQQQ always wins?: Backtests starting after 2010 do — that decade was a near-one-way Nasdaq bull. Start the clock in 2000 and a simulated 3× fund doesn't break even for well over a decade. Backtest conclusions are extremely sensitive to the start date, which is exactly why this tool uses random paths instead of one historical stretch.
TQQQ or QLD?: QLD is the 2× version: much gentler decay, much more recoverable drawdowns, far more forgiving as a long-term hold. TQQQ is closer to a swing/trend instrument. Several studies put the long-run optimal leverage for US indices around 2× — the QLD page runs the same simulation.
Can I dollar-cost average into TQQQ?: You can, but DCA isn't a talisman: it spreads entry points and changes nothing about a 3× product's path dependence — in a 2000-style multi-year bear you'd contribute all the way down. The decision that actually matters is the cap on TQQQ's share of your total assets.
Can TQQQ get delisted or reverse split?: TQQQ is among the largest leveraged ETFs in existence, so liquidation is unlikely; after deep drawdowns issuers do use reverse splits to keep the share price tradable — your value is unchanged, share count shrinks. The real worry isn't delisting, it's the long climb back from −80%.

☕

Support the creator

Did this tool help you? ☕

This is a free side project I built in my spare time. If it saved you time or helped you think through a decision, buying me a coffee keeps the lights on!

Buy me a coffee

How much of a leveraged ETF should you hold versus the plain index? Compare 100/0, 75/25, 50/50, 25/75 and 0/100 splits of a 2×/3× fund and its 1× index — all rebalanced yearly — on CAGR, max drawdown, Sharpe and Calmar.

Built by indigo.la.ringo · AppicLab · Last updated: June 28, 2026