BETH vs. MSTZ

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

BETH (ProShares Bitcoin & Ether Market Cap Weight Strategy ETF) and MSTZ (T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BETH is a Cryptocurrency fund actively managed by ProShares, while MSTZ is a Inverse Equities fund actively managed by REX. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, BETH returned -46.96% vs 159.07% for MSTZ. Their -0.78 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. BETH charges 0.95%/yr vs 1.05%/yr for MSTZ.

Performance

BETH vs. MSTZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Bitcoin & Ether Market Cap Weight Strategy ETF (BETH) and T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF (MSTZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with BETH having a -31.24% return and MSTZ slightly higher at -30.44%.

BETH

• 1D: -2.97%
• 1M: 2.90%
• 6M: -27.29%
• YTD: -31.24%
• 1Y: -46.96%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 17.40%

MSTZ

• 1D: 8.95%
• 1M: 7.38%
• 6M: -24.16%
• YTD: -30.44%
• 1Y: 159.07%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -86.57%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BETH ProShares Bitcoin & Ether Market Cap Weight Strategy ETF	$25.58K	$35.12K	$73.06K
MSTZ T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF	$101.73M	$133.33M	$177.41M

BETH vs. MSTZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
BETH ProShares Bitcoin & Ether Market Cap Weight Strategy ETF	-31.24%	-11.20%	48.60%
MSTZ T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF	-30.44%	-38.95%	-94.43%

Correlation

The correlation between BETH and MSTZ is -0.85, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	-0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 18, 2024	-0.78

The correlation between BETH and MSTZ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from -0.85 to -0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

BETH vs. MSTZ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

BETH

BETH Risk / Return Rank: 2
BETH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1
BETH Sortino Ratio Rank: 1
BETH Omega Ratio Rank: 2
BETH Calmar Ratio Rank: 2
BETH Martin Ratio Rank: 2

MSTZ

MSTZ Risk / Return Rank: 61
MSTZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
MSTZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
MSTZ Omega Ratio Rank: 68
MSTZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
MSTZ Martin Ratio Rank: 42

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

BETH vs. MSTZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Bitcoin & Ether Market Cap Weight Strategy ETF (BETH) and T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF (MSTZ). 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.

	BETH	MSTZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-1.03	1.38	-2.41
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.58	2.22	-3.79
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.83	1.28	-0.46
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.86	2.44	-3.30
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.31	4.53	-5.84

BETH vs. MSTZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BETH Sharpe Ratio is -1.03, which is lower than the MSTZ Sharpe Ratio of 1.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BETH and MSTZ, 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

BETH vs. MSTZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BETH drawdown since its inception was -57.12%, smaller than the maximum MSTZ drawdown of -99.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BETH and MSTZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	BETH	MSTZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-57.12%	-99.38%	+42.26%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-57.12%	-84.89%	+27.77%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-53.54%	-97.63%	+44.09%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-19.65%	-94.63%	+74.98%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	37.38%	45.62%	-8.24%

Volatility

BETH vs. MSTZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ProShares Bitcoin & Ether Market Cap Weight Strategy ETF (BETH) is 9.61%, while T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF (MSTZ) has a volatility of 37.86%. This indicates that BETH experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MSTZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BETH	MSTZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.61%	37.86%	-28.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	35.71%	134.52%	-98.81%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	47.67%	150.23%	-102.56%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	50.63%	169.87%	-119.24%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	50.63%	169.87%	-119.24%

BETH vs. MSTZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

BETH has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is lower than MSTZ's 1.05% expense ratio.

Dividends

BETH vs. MSTZ - Dividend Comparison

BETH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 53.99%, while MSTZ has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BETH ProShares Bitcoin & Ether Market Cap Weight Strategy ETF	41.98%	57.68%	19.71%	0.36%
MSTZ T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BETH and MSTZ in my portfolio?

BETH and MSTZ have a correlation of -0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BETH or MSTZ?

MSTZ has higher volatility (37.86%) compared to BETH (9.61%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BETH dropped -57.12% vs MSTZ's -99.38%.

Which ETF is better, BETH or MSTZ?

On 1-year performance, MSTZ leads with 159.07% vs -46.96% for BETH. On fees, BETH is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, BETH has been the lower-risk option at 9.61%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BETH or MSTZ?

Over the 1-year period, MSTZ has performed better with a 159.07% return vs -46.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BETH or MSTZ?

BETH is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.05% for MSTZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BETH or MSTZ?

BETH has the higher dividend yield at 41.98%, compared with 0.00% for MSTZ.

What is the main difference between BETH and MSTZ?

BETH is categorized as Cryptocurrency, while MSTZ is Inverse Equities. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and REX. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for BETH and 1.05% for MSTZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MSTZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.38 vs -1.03), 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.