AMZZ vs. ROM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

AMZZ (GraniteShares 2x Long AMZN Daily ETF) and ROM (ProShares Ultra Technology) are both Leveraged Equities funds. AMZZ is actively managed, while ROM is passively managed. Over the past year, AMZZ returned 25.28% vs 152.07% for ROM. A 0.57 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. AMZZ charges 1.15%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for ROM.

Performance

AMZZ vs. ROM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares 2x Long AMZN Daily ETF (AMZZ) and ProShares Ultra Technology (ROM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AMZZ achieves a 9.44% return, which is significantly lower than ROM's 77.72% return.

AMZZ

• 1D: -5.02%
• 1M: -16.12%
• YTD: 9.44%
• 6M: 7.26%
• 1Y: 25.28%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ROM

• 1D: -2.01%
• 1M: 45.36%
• YTD: 77.72%
• 6M: 74.45%
• 1Y: 152.07%
• 3Y*: 59.24%
• 5Y*: 31.70%
• 10Y*: 42.70%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

AMZZ vs. ROM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
AMZZ GraniteShares 2x Long AMZN Daily ETF	9.44%	-8.94%	38.36%
ROM ProShares Ultra Technology	77.72%	35.63%	16.95%

Correlation

The correlation between AMZZ and ROM is 0.47, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.47
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 19, 2024	0.57

The correlation between AMZZ and ROM shifts across timeframes, from 0.47 (1 year) to 0.57 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

AMZZ vs. ROM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AMZZ	ROM
Consumer Cyclical	66.7%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	0.1%
Financial Services	-	3.0%
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	0.0%
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	55.2%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

AMZZ vs. ROM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

AMZZ

AMZZ Risk / Return Rank: 17
AMZZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 15
AMZZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
AMZZ Omega Ratio Rank: 19
AMZZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 16
AMZZ Martin Ratio Rank: 15

ROM

ROM Risk / Return Rank: 83
ROM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
ROM Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
ROM Omega Ratio Rank: 80
ROM Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
ROM Martin Ratio Rank: 75

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

AMZZ vs. ROM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares 2x Long AMZN Daily ETF (AMZZ) and ProShares Ultra Technology (ROM). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	AMZZ	ROM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.43	3.66	-3.24
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.99	3.69	-2.69
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.12	1.48	-0.36
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.61	4.73	-4.13
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.37	14.47	-13.10
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AMZZ vs. ROM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AMZZ Sharpe Ratio is 0.43, which is lower than the ROM Sharpe Ratio of 3.66. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AMZZ and ROM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	AMZZ	ROM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.43	3.66	-3.24
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.62	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.86	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.25	0.54	-0.29

Drawdowns

AMZZ vs. ROM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AMZZ drawdown since its inception was -55.28%, smaller than the maximum ROM drawdown of -83.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AMZZ and ROM.

Drawdown Indicators

	AMZZ	ROM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-55.28%	-83.36%	+28.08%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-41.97%	-32.33%	-9.64%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-48.10%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-67.55%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-67.55%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-18.02%	-2.01%	-16.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-20.21%	-20.88%	+0.67%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	18.49%	10.55%	+7.94%

Volatility

AMZZ vs. ROM - Volatility Comparison

GraniteShares 2x Long AMZN Daily ETF (AMZZ) and ProShares Ultra Technology (ROM) have volatilities of 14.66% and 14.00%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AMZZ	ROM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.66%	14.00%	+0.66%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	40.44%	33.37%	+7.07%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	59.66%	41.83%	+17.83%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	62.82%	51.63%	+11.19%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	62.82%	49.82%	+13.00%

AMZZ vs. ROM - Expense Ratio Comparison

AMZZ has a 1.15% expense ratio, which is higher than ROM's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

AMZZ vs. ROM - Dividend Comparison

AMZZ has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ROM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.14%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
AMZZ GraniteShares 2x Long AMZN Daily ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ROM ProShares Ultra Technology	0.14%	0.24%	0.21%	0.01%	0.00%	0.00%	0.05%	0.16%	0.30%	0.08%	0.20%	0.12%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AMZZ and ROM in my portfolio?

AMZZ and ROM have a correlation of 0.47, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AMZZ or ROM?

AMZZ has higher volatility (14.66%) compared to ROM (14.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AMZZ dropped -55.28% vs ROM's -83.36%.

Which ETF is better, AMZZ or ROM?

On 1-year performance, ROM leads with 152.07% vs 25.28% for AMZZ. On fees, ROM is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, ROM has been the lower-risk option at 14.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AMZZ or ROM?

Over the 1-year period, ROM has performed better with a 152.07% return vs 25.28%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AMZZ or ROM?

ROM is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.15% for AMZZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AMZZ or ROM?

ROM has the higher dividend yield at 0.14%, compared with 0.00% for AMZZ.

What is the main difference between AMZZ and ROM?

They also come from different issuers: GraniteShares and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 1.15% for AMZZ and 0.95% for ROM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ROM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.66 vs 0.43), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.