Can You Hold TQQQ Long Term? 10 Years of Data
What holding the 3× Nasdaq‑100 fund since mid‑2016 returned, the 81.6% fall along the way, what that fall meant in dollars, and how a simple exit rule changed the path in a hypothetical backtest.
ResourcesGuide
When Is It Safe to Hold Leveraged ETFs Like TQQQ and SSO?
What ten years of daily data show about the conditions in which 2× and 3× funds did well and the ones in which they lost most of their value, why the daily reset decides it, and how investors size and exit them. With a leveraged‑fund check that updates every trading day.
Key takeaways
- Historically, leveraged ETFs did best in steady, low‑volatility uptrends and lost most in volatile declines. TQQQ fell 80.9% in the 2022 bear market and UPRO 76.8% in the 2020 COVID crash, in Exent’s data. No condition made them low‑risk.
- The daily reset decides it. In flat, choppy 2018 the Nasdaq‑100 fund QQQ returned −0.1% and TQQQ lost 19.7%; in the steady 2017 uptrend QQQ gained 32.7% and TQQQ 118.2%, more than three times.
- An exit rule mattered more than the entry. In a hypothetical backtest (Jan 2017 – Sep 2026), holding TQQQ only while the Nasdaq‑100 was above its 200‑day average cut its worst fall from −81.6% to −54.8%, before costs and taxes.
- Regulators treat them as trading tools: FINRA warned in 2009 that they typically are unsuitable for retail investors who hold them longer than one trading session.
- Size decides the damage. Illustrative: 5% of a $500,000 portfolio in TQQQ through its 81.6% fall lost about $20,400, about 4% of the portfolio; 25% lost about $102,000.
In this article
- When is it safe to hold leveraged ETFs?
- Market risk check, updated every trading day
- Which conditions helped leveraged ETFs, and which hurt them?
- Did TQQQ deliver three times the Nasdaq‑100?
- How much did leveraged ETFs lose in each selloff?
- Did an exit rule make holding them safer?
- How much of a portfolio do investors put in leveraged ETFs?
When is it safe to hold leveraged ETFs?
Leveraged ETFs were never safe in the sense of low risk, but some conditions treated them far better than others. In Exent’s data (Jul 2016 – Sep 2026), 2× and 3× funds compounded fastest in steady uptrends with small daily swings, and lost most in volatile declines. Every 2× and 3× fund in the study fell by more than half at least once.
The reason is the daily reset. A fund such as TQQQ aims for three times the Nasdaq‑100’s return for one day, then rebalances (see daily reset). Over months, the result depends on the path the index took. ProShares, which runs TQQQ, says on the fund’s page that smaller index moves with higher volatility tend to give returns worse than the daily target, and larger moves with lower volatility better ones. That gap is leveraged ETF decay.
Regulators treat these funds as trading tools. FINRA Regulatory Notice 09‑31 warned in 2009 that they typically are unsuitable for retail investors who plan to hold them longer than one trading session. The SEC’s investor bulletin calls them “specialized products that generally are not suitable for buy‑and‑hold investors.” They are popular anyway: Yahoo Finance coverage in September 2026 described leveraged funds as an increasingly popular way to ride the AI‑driven tech rally, with TQQQ at about $35.6 billion in net assets. Other ways to limit crash losses are in the portfolio protection guide.
Market risk check, updated every trading day
Data through the close of Oct 19, 2026. The S&P 500 fell 1.5% over the last five trading days, and the Nasdaq‑100 fell 3.7%. The S&P 500 is 1.6% below its record close of Oct 6: a small dip from its record. It is 6.1% above its 200‑day average (+8.0% a week earlier). Its 20‑day volatility is 9.6% a year, calmer than 70% of trading days since 2016.
The S&P 500 vs its 200‑day average
Daily closes over the last year, through Oct 19, 2026. Green: the index above its average; red: below it.
−1.6%from its record closeRecord: Oct 6, 2026
+6.1%vs its 200‑day averageA week earlier: +8.0%
9.6%20‑day volatility (a year)Median since 2016: 12.2%
−1.5%last five trading daysNasdaq‑100: −3.7%
Leveraged funds this year: the fund vs its multiple
Year‑to‑date return through Oct 19, 2026: what each fund returned next to its multiple times the index’s return. The gap is the daily reset at work.
| Fund | Last 5 days | Year to date | Multiple × index | From its high |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2× S&P 500 (SSO) | −3.1% | +20.8% | +25.4% | −3.7% |
| 3× S&P 500 (UPRO) | −4.6% | +28.4% | +38.1% | −6.0% |
| 2× Nasdaq‑100 (QLD) | −7.5% | +27.5% | +34.2% | −10.9% |
| 3× Nasdaq‑100 (TQQQ) | −11.3% | +34.2% | +51.3% | −19.0% |
| 3× Russell 2000 (TNA) | −7.4% | +16.8% | +31.2% | −50.6% |
| 3× chip stocks (SOXL) | −23.2% | +134.7% | +200.3% | −67.2% |
- 2× S&P 500 (SSO)
- Last 5 days
- −3.1%
- Year to date
- +20.8%
- Multiple × index
- +25.4%
- From its high
- −3.7%
- 3× S&P 500 (UPRO)
- Last 5 days
- −4.6%
- Year to date
- +28.4%
- Multiple × index
- +38.1%
- From its high
- −6.0%
- 2× Nasdaq‑100 (QLD)
- Last 5 days
- −7.5%
- Year to date
- +27.5%
- Multiple × index
- +34.2%
- From its high
- −10.9%
- 3× Nasdaq‑100 (TQQQ)
- Last 5 days
- −11.3%
- Year to date
- +34.2%
- Multiple × index
- +51.3%
- From its high
- −19.0%
- 3× Russell 2000 (TNA)
- Last 5 days
- −7.4%
- Year to date
- +16.8%
- Multiple × index
- +31.2%
- From its high
- −50.6%
- 3× chip stocks (SOXL)
- Last 5 days
- −23.2%
- Year to date
- +134.7%
- Multiple × index
- +200.3%
- From its high
- −67.2%
Exent macro regime score, today
Last updated Oct 19, 2026. Members only.
| Exent regime pillar | Today |
|---|---|
| Liquidity | |
| Credit stress | |
| Economic cycle | |
| Sentiment | |
| Regime: Risk ON · Neutral · Risk OFF |
Price trend and volatility show what the market has already done. Exent’s macro regime score reads the backdrop behind it (liquidity, credit stress, the economic cycle and sentiment) and classifies it as Risk ON, Neutral or Risk OFF. Market intel members see today’s reading and get an alert when it changes.
Which conditions helped leveraged ETFs, and which hurt them?
Trend and volatility decided most of the outcome, and a deep drawdown decided the rest. The table pairs each condition with a year or selloff that showed it, using TQQQ and the Nasdaq‑100 fund QQQ.
| Condition | Example | Nasdaq‑100 (QQQ) | TQQQ (3×) | What it meant |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trend: steady uptrend, low volatility | 2017 | +32.7% | +118.2% | More than 3× the index (+98.1%) |
| Trend: strong rebound from a low | 2023 | +54.9% | +203.0% | More than 3× the index (+164.7%) |
| Volatility: flat but choppy | 2018 | −0.1% | −19.7% | Lost a fifth while the index went nowhere |
| Volatility: strong year with a crash inside it | 2020 | +48.6% | +110.1% | Well short of 3× the index (+145.8%) |
| Drawdown: fast crash | COVID, Feb–Mar 2020 | −28.6% | −69.9% | Largest fall inside 23 trading days |
| Drawdown: long bear market | 2022 | −32.6% | −79.0% | Worst fall −81.6% (Nov 2021 – Dec 2022); back to that high only in Jul 2024 |
| Regime: the macro backdrop | Not tested here | — | — | Reads conditions behind price (liquidity, credit stress, the economic cycle, sentiment) rather than price itself |
- Trend: steady uptrend, low volatility
- Example
- 2017
- Nasdaq‑100 (QQQ)
- +32.7%
- TQQQ (3×)
- +118.2%
- What it meant
- More than 3× the index (+98.1%)
- Trend: strong rebound from a low
- Example
- 2023
- Nasdaq‑100 (QQQ)
- +54.9%
- TQQQ (3×)
- +203.0%
- What it meant
- More than 3× the index (+164.7%)
- Volatility: flat but choppy
- Example
- 2018
- Nasdaq‑100 (QQQ)
- −0.1%
- TQQQ (3×)
- −19.7%
- What it meant
- Lost a fifth while the index went nowhere
- Volatility: strong year with a crash inside it
- Example
- 2020
- Nasdaq‑100 (QQQ)
- +48.6%
- TQQQ (3×)
- +110.1%
- What it meant
- Well short of 3× the index (+145.8%)
- Drawdown: fast crash
- Example
- COVID, Feb–Mar 2020
- Nasdaq‑100 (QQQ)
- −28.6%
- TQQQ (3×)
- −69.9%
- What it meant
- Largest fall inside 23 trading days
- Drawdown: long bear market
- Example
- 2022
- Nasdaq‑100 (QQQ)
- −32.6%
- TQQQ (3×)
- −79.0%
- What it meant
- Worst fall −81.6% (Nov 2021 – Dec 2022); back to that high only in Jul 2024
- Regime: the macro backdrop
- Example
- Not tested here
- Nasdaq‑100 (QQQ)
- —
- TQQQ (3×)
- —
- What it meant
- Reads conditions behind price (liquidity, credit stress, the economic cycle, sentiment) rather than price itself
Calendar‑year total returns, except the COVID row, which shows each fund’s largest fall between the S&P 500’s peak on Feb 19 and its low on Mar 23, 2020. The S&P 500 side looked the same: in choppy 2018 the S&P 500 fund SPY lost 4.6% and the 3× fund UPRO lost 25.1%, far more than three times the index.
Trend and volatility are price facts: a chart shows them, but only once they have happened. A macro regime score looks at the backdrop instead, and this page does not backtest one.
Did TQQQ deliver three times the Nasdaq‑100?
Only in steady years. TQQQ did better than three times the index in 2017, 2019, 2021 and 2023, and worse in 2018, 2020 and every year since 2024. In 2022 it lost 79.0%, less than three times the index’s 32.6%, because daily compounding also shrinks losses in a steady fall. It still needed a 376% gain to get back to where it started the year.
| Year | Index (QQQ) | 3× the index | The fund (TQQQ) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | +32.7% | +98.1% | +118.2% |
| 2018 | −0.1% | −0.3% | −19.7% |
| 2019 | +39.0% | +117.0% | +134.0% |
| 2020 | +48.6% | +145.8% | +110.1% |
| 2021 | +27.4% | +82.2% | +83.0% |
| 2022 | −32.6% | −97.8% | −79.0% |
| 2023 | +54.9% | +164.7% | +203.0% |
| 2024 | +25.6% | +76.8% | +60.5% |
| 2025 | +20.8% | +62.4% | +35.1% |
| 2026 (to Sep 2026) | +20.6% | +61.8% | +48.2% |
These are daily‑data returns from Jul 2016. Our guide to whether leveraged ETFs improve returns uses monthly data over the 10 years to Sep 2026 (TQQQ 41.4% a year there, 44.1% here), so the figures differ slightly; the conclusion does not.
How much did leveraged ETFs lose in each selloff?
The 2× funds lost between about a third and nearly two‑thirds in each of the four selloffs since 2018. The 3× index funds lost 48.9% to 80.9%, and the 3× chip fund SOXL lost 60.9% to 90.3%. Each number is the fund’s own largest fall inside the selloff.
| Fund | Q4 2018 | COVID 2020 | 2022 bear | 2025 tariffs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2× S&P 500 (SSO) | −36.5% | −59.3% | −46.7% | −35.1% |
| 3× S&P 500 (UPRO) | −50.3% | −76.8% | −63.9% | −48.9% |
| 2× Nasdaq‑100 (QLD) | −42.3% | −51.7% | −63.1% | −41.8% |
| 3× Nasdaq‑100 (TQQQ) | −57.9% | −69.9% | −80.9% | −56.7% |
| 3× Semiconductors (SOXL) | −60.9% | −80.4% | −90.3% | −73.9% |
- 2× S&P 500 (SSO)
- Q4 2018
- −36.5%
- COVID 2020
- −59.3%
- 2022 bear
- −46.7%
- 2025 tariffs
- −35.1%
- 3× S&P 500 (UPRO)
- Q4 2018
- −50.3%
- COVID 2020
- −76.8%
- 2022 bear
- −63.9%
- 2025 tariffs
- −48.9%
- 2× Nasdaq‑100 (QLD)
- Q4 2018
- −42.3%
- COVID 2020
- −51.7%
- 2022 bear
- −63.1%
- 2025 tariffs
- −41.8%
- 3× Nasdaq‑100 (TQQQ)
- Q4 2018
- −57.9%
- COVID 2020
- −69.9%
- 2022 bear
- −80.9%
- 2025 tariffs
- −56.7%
- 3× Semiconductors (SOXL)
- Q4 2018
- −60.9%
- COVID 2020
- −80.4%
- 2022 bear
- −90.3%
- 2025 tariffs
- −73.9%
The recovery math and the question of whether a fund can go to zero are covered in how much leveraged ETFs lose in a crash.
Did an exit rule make holding them safer?
It made the falls smaller. In this hypothetical backtest (Jan 2017 – Sep 2026), each fund was held while its index (SPY or QQQ) closed above its 200‑day average the day before, and swapped for T‑bills otherwise. Trading costs and taxes are not included.
| Fund | Hold: a year | Hold: worst fall | 200‑day rule: a year | Rule: worst fall | Time invested |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2× S&P 500 (SSO) | 23.6% | −59.3% | 16.2% | −36.7% | 82% |
| 3× S&P 500 (UPRO) | 28.0% | −76.8% | 20.6% | −52.2% | 82% |
| 2× Nasdaq‑100 (QLD) | 34.3% | −63.7% | 33.2% | −40.2% | 83% |
| 3× Nasdaq‑100 (TQQQ) | 42.5% | −81.6% | 46.4% | −54.8% | 83% |
- 2× S&P 500 (SSO)
- Hold: a year
- 23.6%
- Hold: worst fall
- −59.3%
- 200‑day rule: a year
- 16.2%
- Rule: worst fall
- −36.7%
- Time invested
- 82%
- 3× S&P 500 (UPRO)
- Hold: a year
- 28.0%
- Hold: worst fall
- −76.8%
- 200‑day rule: a year
- 20.6%
- Rule: worst fall
- −52.2%
- Time invested
- 82%
- 2× Nasdaq‑100 (QLD)
- Hold: a year
- 34.3%
- Hold: worst fall
- −63.7%
- 200‑day rule: a year
- 33.2%
- Rule: worst fall
- −40.2%
- Time invested
- 83%
- 3× Nasdaq‑100 (TQQQ)
- Hold: a year
- 42.5%
- Hold: worst fall
- −81.6%
- 200‑day rule: a year
- 46.4%
- Rule: worst fall
- −54.8%
- Time invested
- 83%
The rule cut every fund’s worst fall by roughly a third or more: TQQQ’s from −81.6% to −54.8%, UPRO’s from −76.8% to −52.2%. Return was a different story. On the Nasdaq‑100 funds the rule kept pace or did better (TQQQ 46.4% vs 42.5% a year); on the S&P 500 funds it gave up a lot (UPRO 20.6% vs 28.0%). The holding figures here start in Jan 2017, so they differ from the Jul 2016 figures above. Switch counts, whipsaws and taxes are in TQQQ and the 200‑day moving average; the long‑hold case is in can you hold TQQQ long term.
How much of a portfolio do investors put in leveraged ETFs?
Investors who hold them usually keep them to a small slice, because size decides how much of the fund’s fall reaches the whole portfolio. The example below is illustrative arithmetic, not a recommended position size.
| Illustrative: $500,000 portfolio | In TQQQ | Loss in an 81.6% fall | Portfolio loss |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5% in TQQQ | $25,000 | −$20,400 | −4.1% |
| 10% in TQQQ | $50,000 | −$40,800 | −8.2% |
| 25% in TQQQ | $125,000 | −$102,000 | −20.4% |
- Decide the exit before the entry: a price level, a trend rule or a change in conditions, written down.
- Size the position so the worst fall in the tables above is a dollar loss you could sit through.
- Count it at its real weight: day to day, 10% in a 3× fund moves like about 30% in the index.
- Remember the rest of the portfolio falls at the same time: QQQ itself lost 35.1% in the 2021–22 fall.
For the choice between 2× and 3× on the S&P 500, see SSO vs UPRO vs SPXL.
Leverage with an exit: where Exent fits
- Exent Predictive Market Intelligence publishes a daily macro regime score (Risk ON, Neutral or Risk OFF) read from four pillars: liquidity, credit stress, the economic cycle and sentiment.
- Six model allocations show how exposure can follow the regime, from fully invested or fully in cash to a 2× model that uses leverage only in Risk ON and steps aside to cash in Risk OFF.
- Members get an alert when the regime changes, plus a daily macro briefing with cited sources and an events calendar.
Frequently asked questions
Not in the sense of low risk. TQQQ fell 81.6% from November 2021 to December 2022 in Exent’s data, and US regulators describe leveraged ETFs as trading tools. It did best in steady, low-volatility uptrends.
Nobody times it reliably. Historically, 3x funds compounded best in steady uptrends with small daily swings and lost most in volatile declines, which is why investors who use them often pair the entry with a written exit rule.
SSO, a 2x S&P 500 fund, decays less than 3x funds, but it still fell 59.3% in the 2020 COVID crash and 46.7% in the 2022 bear market. It lost a little under twice the S&P 500 in each of the four selloffs since 2018.
Historically, yes. ProShares says lower index volatility and larger index moves tend to produce returns better than the daily target. In steady 2017 TQQQ returned 118.2% against 32.7% for QQQ; in choppy 2018 it lost 19.7% while QQQ was flat.
In a hypothetical backtest from January 2017 to September 2026, it cut TQQQ’s worst fall from 81.6% to 54.8% and UPRO’s from 76.8% to 52.2%, before trading costs and taxes. It switched often and missed parts of rebounds.
There is no standard answer, and this is not a recommendation. As an illustration, 5% of a $500,000 portfolio in TQQQ during its 81.6% fall would have lost about $20,400, about 4% of the portfolio.
Know when to hold the index, and when to step aside.
Market Intelligence reads the market regime and tells you whether the backdrop favors taking risk or protecting capital.
Explore Market IntelligenceLimited offer67% off your first month
Educational content, not investment advice. Examples are illustrative; past performance does not guarantee future results.