BIB vs. SMH
BIB (ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Biotechnology) and SMH (VanEck Semiconductor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BIB is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index (200%), while SMH is a Semiconductors fund tracking the MVIS US Listed Semiconductor 25 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, BIB returned 9.71%/yr vs 37.85%/yr for SMH. A 0.50 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BIB charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for SMH.
Performance
BIB vs. SMH - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BIB achieves a 12.50% return, which is significantly lower than SMH's 72.73% return. Over the past 10 years, BIB has underperformed SMH with an annualized return of 9.71%, while SMH has yielded a comparatively higher 37.85% annualized 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%
SMH
- 1D
- -7.01%
- 1M
- 7.93%
- YTD
- 72.73%
- 6M
- 71.29%
- 1Y
- 138.23%
- 3Y*
- 62.28%
- 5Y*
- 38.18%
- 10Y*
- 37.85%
BIB vs. SMH - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BIB ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Biotechnology | 12.50% | 59.21% | -9.84% | -1.06% | -28.85% | -6.02% | 39.79% | 46.71% | -24.93% | 40.49% |
SMH VanEck Semiconductor ETF | 72.73% | 49.17% | 39.10% | 73.38% | -33.53% | 42.13% | 55.53% | 64.45% | -9.05% | 38.48% |
Correlation
The correlation between BIB and SMH is 0.32, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.32 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.36 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.45 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.49 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 8, 2010 | 0.50 |
The correlation between BIB and SMH shifts across timeframes, from 0.32 (1 year) to 0.50 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
BIB vs. SMH - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
BIB
SMH
Healthcare
-
Financial Services
-
Basic Materials
-
-
Communication Services
-
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
-
Consumer Defensive
-
-
Energy
-
-
Industrials
-
-
Real Estate
-
-
Technology
-
Utilities
-
-
Healthcare
BIB
SMH
-
Financial Services
BIB
SMH
-
Basic Materials
BIB
-
SMH
-
Communication Services
BIB
-
SMH
-
Consumer Cyclical
BIB
-
SMH
-
Consumer Defensive
BIB
-
SMH
-
Energy
BIB
-
SMH
-
Industrials
BIB
-
SMH
-
Real Estate
BIB
-
SMH
-
Technology
BIB
-
SMH
Utilities
BIB
-
SMH
-
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. SMH — Risk / Return Rank
BIB
SMH
BIB vs. SMH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Biotechnology (BIB) and VanEck Semiconductor ETF (SMH). 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 | SMH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.48 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.97 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.36 | 1.58 | -0.22 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 5.99 | 9.31 | -3.32 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 18.30 | 33.88 | -15.58 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BIB vs. SMH - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BIB drawdown since its inception was -67.24%, smaller than the maximum SMH drawdown of -84.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BIB and SMH.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BIB | SMH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -67.24% | -84.96% | +17.72% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.92% | -14.93% | -1.99% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -45.30% | -35.74% | -9.56% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -65.86% | -45.30% | -20.56% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -66.20% | -45.30% | -20.90% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -17.29% | -7.01% | -10.28% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -32.71% | -41.01% | +8.30% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.53% | 4.10% | +1.43% |
Volatility
BIB vs. SMH - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Biotechnology (BIB) is 13.56%, while VanEck Semiconductor ETF (SMH) has a volatility of 19.08%. This indicates that BIB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SMH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BIB | SMH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 13.56% | 19.08% | -5.52% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 31.65% | 29.18% | +2.47% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 40.43% | 34.87% | +5.56% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 43.60% | 35.83% | +7.77% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 46.39% | 32.97% | +13.42% |
BIB vs. SMH - Expense Ratio Comparison
BIB has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than SMH's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
BIB vs. SMH - Dividend Comparison
BIB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.55%, more than SMH's 0.18% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BIB ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Biotechnology | 0.55% | 0.77% | 1.69% | 0.07% | 0.03% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
SMH VanEck Semiconductor ETF | 0.18% | 0.31% | 0.44% | 0.60% | 1.18% | 0.51% | 0.69% | 1.50% | 1.88% | 1.43% | 0.80% | 2.14% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BIB and SMH have a correlation of 0.32, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
SMH has higher volatility (19.08%) compared to BIB (13.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BIB dropped -67.24% vs SMH's -84.96%.
On 10-year performance, SMH leads with 37.85% vs 9.71% for BIB. On fees, SMH is cheaper at 0.35% 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 10-year period, SMH has performed better with a 37.85% return vs 9.71%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
SMH is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BIB.
BIB has the higher dividend yield at 0.55%, compared with 0.18% for SMH.
BIB is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while SMH is Semiconductors. BIB tracks NASDAQ Biotechnology Index (200%), while SMH tracks MVIS US Listed Semiconductor 25 Index. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for BIB and 0.35% for SMH.
SMH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.99 vs 2.51), 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 SMH
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