BOIL vs. GLDW
BOIL (ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Natural Gas) and GLDW (Roundhill Gold WeeklyPay ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BOIL is a Leveraged Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Natural Gas Subindex, while GLDW is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by State Street. BOIL is passively managed, while GLDW is actively managed. At a 0.07 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BOIL charges 1.31%/yr vs 0.99%/yr for GLDW.
Performance
BOIL vs. GLDW - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BOIL achieves a -36.77% return, which is significantly lower than GLDW's 1.00% return.
BOIL
- 1D
- 4.32%
- 1M
- 4.62%
- YTD
- -36.77%
- 6M
- -62.98%
- 1Y
- -74.31%
- 3Y*
- -60.61%
- 5Y*
- -64.63%
- 10Y*
- -56.95%
GLDW
- 1D
- -1.20%
- 1M
- -2.48%
- YTD
- 1.00%
- 6M
- 3.47%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BOIL vs. GLDW - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BOIL ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Natural Gas | -36.77% | -19.08% |
GLDW Roundhill Gold WeeklyPay ETF | 1.00% | 7.63% |
Correlation
The correlation between BOIL and GLDW is 0.07, 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 31, 2025 | 0.07 |
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
BOIL vs. GLDW — Risk / Return Rank
BOIL
GLDW
BOIL vs. GLDW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Natural Gas (BOIL) and Roundhill Gold WeeklyPay ETF (GLDW). 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.
| BOIL | GLDW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.90 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.92 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.26 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| BOIL | GLDW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.66 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.55 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | -0.56 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.61 | 0.42 | -1.03 |
Drawdowns
BOIL vs. GLDW - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BOIL drawdown since its inception was -100.00%, which is greater than GLDW's maximum drawdown of -23.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BOIL and GLDW.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BOIL | GLDW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -100.00% | -23.59% | -76.41% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -80.85% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -96.86% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -99.91% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -99.99% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -100.00% | -22.51% | -77.49% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -93.59% | -8.93% | -84.66% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 59.20% | — | — |
Volatility
BOIL vs. GLDW - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BOIL | GLDW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 23.95% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 107.61% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 113.64% | 36.90% | +76.74% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 118.89% | 36.90% | +81.99% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 101.81% | 36.90% | +64.91% |
BOIL vs. GLDW - Expense Ratio Comparison
BOIL has a 1.31% expense ratio, which is higher than GLDW's 0.99% expense ratio.
Dividends
BOIL vs. GLDW - Dividend Comparison
BOIL has not paid dividends to shareholders, while GLDW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 19.48%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
BOIL ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Natural Gas | 0.00% | 0.00% |
GLDW Roundhill Gold WeeklyPay ETF | 19.48% | 3.75% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BOIL and GLDW have a correlation of 0.07, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, GLDW is cheaper at 0.99% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
GLDW is cheaper with a 0.99% expense ratio, compared with 1.31% for BOIL.
GLDW has the higher dividend yield at 19.48%, compared with 0.00% for BOIL.
BOIL is categorized as Leveraged Commodities, while GLDW is Derivative Income. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and State Street. Their fees differ too: 1.31% for BOIL and 0.99% for GLDW.
Find the right allocation for BOIL and GLDW
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