Yes, your table is correct... the proverbial "catch" is in your assumptions of small gains, with nil volatility. Because volatility is itself the catch with levered strategies in general (and levered ETFs very specifically).
Replicate these 1% returns with a 14.14% standard normal deviation, for a thousand, million, billion runs. Your 1% compound return will (or certainly should) go to zero.
Because if the stockmarket went up or down by 50% every day at random, there's a 25% chance of a 75% loss (0.50.5=0.25), a 50% chance of a 25% loss (1.50.5=0.75) and a 25% chance of a 125% gain (1.5*1.5=2.25). Net net, you'd expect to lose 25% on average every period... putting in "up or down 1% or 2% or 5%" are just milder expresssions of the same basic mathematical phenomenon.
If the arithmetic return is X with Y volatility, then the CAGR (assuming normally distributed returns) would be X - 0.5 * Y ^2.
And if you want to play this game with levered ETFs levered L to the underlying, it's:
CAGR = L.X - 0.5.L.(L-1)*Y^2.
So for higher volatility assets, both the levered long and the levered short ETFs will both lose money. I know. Back in the day, I was playing this game with VIX, goldminers, and Natural Gas; back when it possible to get the borrow to short these bad boys in both directions! Sadly no more cheap lunches there these days ;-(
As a next step in your analysis, I would maybe look at the simulated difference in (1) returns from levered ETFs; versus (2) just generating some real leverage, by borrowing some real money and investing that; versus (3) just buying futures, if you want the same leverage. I've struggled to come up with ANY scenario where (1) is optimal. If you love (or hate) the asset in question that much, the future is nearly always preferable to the levered ETF...