FAS
Price
$174.02
Change
-$0.45 (-0.26%)
Updated
Jul 31 closing price
Net Assets
2.36B
Intraday BUY SELL Signals
MLPR
Price
$74.33
Change
+$0.30 (+0.41%)
Updated
Jul 30 closing price
Net Assets
57.29M
Intraday BUY SELL Signals
Interact to see
Advertisement

FAS vs MLPR

FAS vs MLPR Comparison Chart in %
loading
loading
View a ticker or compare two or three
Jul 24, 2026

Which ETF would AI Choose? Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X Shares (FAS) vs. ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5X Leveraged Alerian MLP Index ETN (MLPR)

Key Takeaways

  • FAS delivers 3x daily leveraged exposure to U.S. large-cap financial services companies via swaps and securities, resulting in high volatility and suitability for short-term tactical trades.
  • MLPR offers 1.5x quarterly leveraged exposure to the Alerian MLP Index through an exchange-traded note (ETN) structure focused on midstream energy Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs).
  • Structural differences include FAS as a leveraged equity ETF with dozens of holdings versus MLPR as an ETN with no direct holdings and credit risk tied to the issuer.
  • Expense ratios reflect complexity: approximately 0.88%–0.92% for FAS and 1.90% for MLPR, both elevated due to leverage mechanics.
  • FAS provides concentrated financial sector beta while MLPR targets energy infrastructure income and growth with quarterly coupon distributions linked to MLP cash flows.
  • Risk profiles diverge sharply: daily reset leverage in FAS amplifies compounding effects, while MLPR incorporates financing costs and potential issuer default exposure inherent to ETNs.

Introduction

Investors seeking leveraged exposure to distinct sectors often compare products like FAS and MLPR to align with specific market views. These exchange-traded products do not compete directly; instead, they represent alternative leveraged strategies targeting different segments of the economy. FAS amplifies financial services performance, while MLPR magnifies midstream energy infrastructure returns. The comparison helps clarify trade-offs in leverage magnitude, underlying asset classes, fund structures, and cost implications within the current environment of sector rotation and macroeconomic uncertainty.

Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X Shares (FAS) Overview

FAS seeks daily investment results, before fees and expenses, of 300% of the Russell 1000 Financial Services Index. The fund uses swap agreements, securities of the index, and ETFs that track the index to achieve its objective. It holds approximately 70–90 securities, with top holdings concentrated in major banks, insurers, and capital markets firms. Sector allocation centers exclusively on financial services, including banks, insurance, and diversified financials. The gross expense ratio stands at 0.92%, with a net expense ratio of 0.88% after waivers. As a leveraged ETF, it employs daily rebalancing to maintain target exposure, introducing volatility decay over longer holding periods. The structure suits investors seeking amplified short-term exposure to U.S. financial sector trends.

ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5X Leveraged Alerian MLP Index ETN (MLPR) Overview

MLPR is designed to provide 1.5 times leveraged long exposure to the compounded quarterly performance of the Alerian MLP Index, less financing costs and tracking fees. Structured as an exchange-traded note (ETN) issued by UBS, it carries credit risk tied to the issuer rather than direct ownership of underlying assets. The product tracks a composite of energy infrastructure Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs) focused on midstream activities such as transportation, storage, and processing of energy commodities. With zero direct holdings due to its ETN design, it features an expense ratio of 1.90% and may distribute variable quarterly coupons linked to leveraged MLP distributions. Rebalancing occurs on a quarterly basis, distinguishing it from daily-reset leveraged products.

Industry and Thematic Backdrop

The financial services sector, targeted by FAS, benefits from interest rate environments, lending activity, and capital markets conditions. Midstream energy infrastructure, the focus of MLPR, responds to commodity price stability, energy demand, and infrastructure spending. Broader catalysts include Federal Reserve policy shifts, regulatory developments in banking and energy, and capital flows into infrastructure assets. Risks encompass interest rate volatility for financials and commodity price fluctuations plus regulatory changes for energy MLPs. Both sectors exhibit sensitivity to macroeconomic cycles, with financials tied to credit conditions and energy infrastructure linked to production and consumption trends.

Performance and Positioning Comparison

In recent market cycles, FAS has exhibited pronounced sensitivity to equity market swings and financial sector rotations driven by earnings seasons and monetary policy expectations. Its daily leverage amplifies both gains and losses, leading to greater volatility relative to unleveraged benchmarks. MLPR has shown behavior influenced by energy commodity trends and MLP distribution stability, with quarterly resets moderating some compounding effects compared to daily leverage. Relative positioning favors FAS for investors anticipating financial sector momentum and MLPR for those seeking leveraged exposure to stable midstream cash flows amid energy transition themes. Volatility differences stem primarily from leverage multiples and underlying sector characteristics rather than isolated price movements.

AI Screener

Tickeron’s AI Screener is an AI-powered stock and ETF discovery tool that helps traders and investors filter the market based on technical patterns, fundamentals, trends, volatility, and AI-driven signals. Users can scan thousands of stocks and ETFs using customizable filters such as industry, market capitalization, technical indicators, price patterns, and performance metrics. The screener helps identify trade ideas, trending stocks, breakout candidates, and market opportunities more efficiently than manual screening. Explore the AI Screener to refine your ETF and sector analysis.

Tickeron AI Verdict

Based on structural strength, cost efficiency, diversification profile, and sector momentum factors, Tickeron’s AI would currently assign a modestly higher probability of favorability to FAS for tactical exposure within equity market cycles, owing to its established liquidity and alignment with broad financial sector trends. MLPR presents a differentiated profile suited to income-oriented investors comfortable with ETN credit exposure and energy infrastructure dynamics. Selection depends on individual risk tolerance and investment horizon.

Disclaimer

The information on this webpage is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and is not intended as investment advice, a recommendation to purchase or sell any security, or an offer or solicitation related to investments. It does not consider your personal financial situation, goals, or risk profile, and all investing carries inherent risks, including the possibility of losing your entire investment. For more details, please review our full disclaimer.

Disclaimers and Limitations

VS
FAS vs. MLPR commentary
Aug 03, 2026

To compare these two companies we present long-term analysis, their fundamental ratings and make comparative short-term technical analysis which are presented below. The conclusion is FAS is a Hold and MLPR is a Buy.

Interact to see
Advertisement
SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
FAS has more net assets: 2.37B vs. MLPR (57.3M). MLPR has a higher annual dividend yield than FAS: MLPR (37.959) vs FAS (4.276). FAS was incepted earlier than MLPR: FAS (18 years) vs MLPR (6 years).
FASMLPRFAS / MLPR
Gain YTD4.27637.95911%
Net Assets2.37B57.3M4,127%
Total Expense Ratio0.88N/A-
Turnover66.00N/A-
Yield1.039.0011%
Fund Existence18 years6 years-
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
FASMLPR
RSI
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
90%
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
87%
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
90%
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
85%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
90%
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
90%
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
90%
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
90%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
90%
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
81%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
90%
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
90%
Advances
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 7 days ago
90%
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
90%
Declines
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 12 days ago
90%
Bearish Trend 25 days ago
83%
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
90%
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
90%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
89%
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
90%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
FAS
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
MLPR
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
MFs / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
SCPIX58.570.41
+0.70%
DWS S&P 500 Index S
TPVIX21.250.05
+0.24%
Timothy Plan Small Cap Value I
FIQAX18.590.04
+0.22%
Fidelity Advisor Asset Manager 60% Z
FVRLX6.78-0.03
-0.44%
Forester Value R
GHAIX57.92-0.42
-0.72%
VanEck Global Resources Fund I

FAS and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, FAS has been closely correlated with BAC. These tickers have moved in lockstep 79% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is a high statistical probability that if FAS jumps, then BAC could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To FAS
1D Price
Change %
FAS100%
-0.26%
BAC - FAS
79%
Closely correlated
+0.36%
SF - FAS
79%
Closely correlated
+0.34%
COF - FAS
76%
Closely correlated
-0.54%
JPM - FAS
75%
Closely correlated
+0.27%
AXP - FAS
73%
Closely correlated
-0.38%
More