AUMI vs. SKF

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

AUMI (Themes Gold Miners ETF) and SKF (ProShares UltraShort Financials) are both exchange-traded funds - AUMI is a Gold fund tracking the Solactive Global Pure Gold Miners Index, while SKF is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the DJ Global United States (All) / Financials -IND (-200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past year, AUMI returned 42.36% vs -10.08% for SKF. At a correlation of -0.14, they often move in opposite directions. AUMI charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for SKF.

Performance

AUMI vs. SKF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Themes Gold Miners ETF (AUMI) and ProShares UltraShort Financials (SKF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AUMI achieves a -13.29% return, which is significantly lower than SKF's 2.60% return.

AUMI

• 1D: -4.42%
• 1M: -8.75%
• YTD: -13.29%
• 6M: -17.30%
• 1Y: 42.36%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

SKF

• 1D: -0.73%
• 1M: -7.49%
• YTD: 2.60%
• 6M: 5.47%
• 1Y: -10.08%
• 3Y*: -27.28%
• 5Y*: -17.96%
• 10Y*: -27.50%

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

AUMI vs. SKF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
AUMI Themes Gold Miners ETF	-13.29%	164.18%	30.61%	10.23%
SKF ProShares UltraShort Financials	2.60%	-23.99%	-36.29%	-6.01%

Correlation

The correlation between AUMI and SKF is -0.18, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.18
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 13, 2023	-0.14

AUMI vs. SKF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AUMI	SKF
Basic Materials	99.3%	-
Communication Services	0.2%	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	59.3%
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

AUMI vs. SKF — Risk / Return Rank

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

AUMI

AUMI Risk / Return Rank: 25
AUMI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
AUMI Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
AUMI Omega Ratio Rank: 26
AUMI Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
AUMI Martin Ratio Rank: 24

SKF

SKF Risk / Return Rank: 5
SKF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6
SKF Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
SKF Omega Ratio Rank: 6
SKF Calmar Ratio Rank: 5
SKF Martin Ratio Rank: 4

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.

AUMI vs. SKF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Themes Gold Miners ETF (AUMI) and ProShares UltraShort Financials (SKF). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	AUMI	SKF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.85	-0.35	+1.20
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.32	-0.33	+1.64
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	0.96	+0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.08	-0.46	+1.54
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.97	-1.05	+4.02

AUMI vs. SKF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AUMI Sharpe Ratio is 0.85, which is higher than the SKF Sharpe Ratio of -0.35. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AUMI and SKF, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

AUMI vs. SKF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AUMI drawdown since its inception was -39.28%, smaller than the maximum SKF drawdown of -99.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AUMI and SKF.

Drawdown Indicators

	AUMI	SKF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-39.28%	-99.96%	+60.68%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-39.28%	-22.02%	-17.26%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-68.09%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-72.40%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-96.51%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-34.76%	-99.95%	+65.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.57%	-89.27%	+81.70%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	14.30%	9.95%	+4.35%

Volatility

AUMI vs. SKF - Volatility Comparison

Themes Gold Miners ETF (AUMI) has a higher volatility of 18.19% compared to ProShares UltraShort Financials (SKF) at 8.32%. This indicates that AUMI's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than SKF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AUMI	SKF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	18.19%	8.32%	+9.87%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	41.34%	22.47%	+18.87%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	50.13%	29.21%	+20.92%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	42.46%	36.04%	+6.42%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	42.46%	40.82%	+1.64%

AUMI vs. SKF - Expense Ratio Comparison

AUMI has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than SKF's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

AUMI vs. SKF - Dividend Comparison

AUMI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.00%, less than SKF's 4.61% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
AUMI Themes Gold Miners ETF	1.00%	0.86%	1.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
SKF ProShares UltraShort Financials	4.61%	5.61%	7.94%	3.93%	0.03%	0.00%	0.11%	1.29%	0.06%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AUMI and SKF in my portfolio?

AUMI and SKF have a correlation of -0.18, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AUMI or SKF?

AUMI has higher volatility (18.19%) compared to SKF (8.32%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AUMI dropped -39.28% vs SKF's -99.96%.

Which ETF is better, AUMI or SKF?

On 1-year performance, AUMI leads with 42.36% vs -10.08% for SKF. On fees, AUMI is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, SKF has been the lower-risk option at 8.32%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AUMI or SKF?

Over the 1-year period, AUMI has performed better with a 42.36% return vs -10.08%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AUMI or SKF?

AUMI is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for SKF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AUMI or SKF?

SKF has the higher dividend yield at 4.61%, compared with 1.00% for AUMI.

What is the main difference between AUMI and SKF?

AUMI is categorized as Gold, while SKF is Leveraged Equities. AUMI tracks Solactive Global Pure Gold Miners Index, while SKF tracks DJ Global United States (All) / Financials -IND (-200%). They also come from different issuers: Themes and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for AUMI and 0.95% for SKF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

AUMI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.85 vs -0.35), 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.