BIB vs. CRMG
BIB (ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Biotechnology) and CRMG (Leverage Shares 2X Long CRM Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. BIB is passively managed, while CRMG is actively managed. Over the past year, BIB returned 100.86% vs -73.99% for CRMG. At a 0.11 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BIB charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for CRMG.
Performance
BIB vs. CRMG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BIB achieves a 12.50% return, which is significantly higher than CRMG's -71.26% return.
BIB
- 1D
- 1.97%
- 1M
- 9.49%
- YTD
- 12.50%
- 6M
- 8.62%
- 1Y
- 100.86%
- 3Y*
- 19.65%
- 5Y*
- -0.74%
- 10Y*
- 9.71%
CRMG
- 1D
- 4.23%
- 1M
- -29.64%
- YTD
- -71.26%
- 6M
- -71.01%
- 1Y
- -73.99%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BIB vs. CRMG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BIB ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Biotechnology | 12.50% | 76.70% |
CRMG Leverage Shares 2X Long CRM Daily ETF | -71.26% | -0.29% |
Correlation
The correlation between BIB and CRMG is 0.05, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.05 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 4, 2025 | 0.11 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
BIB vs. CRMG — Risk / Return Rank
BIB
CRMG
BIB vs. CRMG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Biotechnology (BIB) and Leverage Shares 2X Long CRM Daily ETF (CRMG). 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.
| BIB | CRMG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +3.48 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +4.90 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.36 | 0.79 | +0.57 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 5.99 | -0.97 | +6.96 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 18.30 | -1.70 | +20.00 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BIB vs. CRMG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BIB drawdown since its inception was -67.24%, smaller than the maximum CRMG drawdown of -79.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BIB and CRMG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BIB | CRMG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -67.24% | -79.83% | +12.59% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.92% | -76.80% | +59.88% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -45.30% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -65.86% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -66.20% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -17.29% | -78.97% | +61.68% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -32.71% | -39.18% | +6.47% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.53% | 43.41% | -37.88% |
Volatility
BIB vs. CRMG - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Biotechnology (BIB) is 13.56%, while Leverage Shares 2X Long CRM Daily ETF (CRMG) has a volatility of 32.53%. This indicates that BIB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CRMG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BIB | CRMG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 13.56% | 32.53% | -18.97% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 31.65% | 63.74% | -32.09% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 40.43% | 76.12% | -35.69% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 43.60% | 75.39% | -31.79% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 46.39% | 75.39% | -29.00% |
BIB vs. CRMG - Expense Ratio Comparison
BIB has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than CRMG's 0.75% expense ratio.
Dividends
BIB vs. CRMG - Dividend Comparison
BIB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.55%, while CRMG has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BIB ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Biotechnology | 0.55% | 0.77% | 1.69% | 0.07% | 0.03% |
CRMG Leverage Shares 2X Long CRM Daily ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BIB and CRMG have a correlation of 0.05, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CRMG has higher volatility (32.53%) compared to BIB (13.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BIB dropped -67.24% vs CRMG's -79.83%.
On 1-year performance, BIB leads with 100.86% vs -73.99% for CRMG. On fees, CRMG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, BIB has been the lower-risk option at 13.56%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, BIB has performed better with a 100.86% return vs -73.99%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
CRMG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BIB.
BIB has the higher dividend yield at 0.55%, compared with 0.00% for CRMG.
They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Leverage Shares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for BIB and 0.75% for CRMG.
BIB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.51 vs -0.97), 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.
Find the right allocation for BIB and CRMG
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer