CARD vs. RWM

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

CARD (Max Auto Industry -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN) and RWM (ProShares Short Russell2000) are both Inverse Equities funds - CARD tracks the Prime Auto Industry Index - Benchmark TR Net (--300%) while RWM tracks the Russell 2000 (-100%). Both are passively managed. Over the past year, CARD returned -32.26% vs -27.36% for RWM. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

CARD vs. RWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Max Auto Industry -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (CARD) and ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CARD achieves a 3.44% return, which is significantly higher than RWM's -17.51% return.

CARD

• 1D: -2.38%
• 1M: 1.10%
• YTD: 3.44%
• 6M: 15.94%
• 1Y: -32.26%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RWM

• 1D: -1.47%
• 1M: -5.08%
• YTD: -17.51%
• 6M: -15.29%
• 1Y: -27.36%
• 3Y*: -13.63%
• 5Y*: -5.60%
• 10Y*: -12.48%

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

CARD vs. RWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CARD Max Auto Industry -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN	3.44%	-60.21%	-58.19%	-32.77%
RWM ProShares Short Russell2000	-17.51%	-9.40%	-5.91%	-6.89%

Correlation

The correlation between CARD and RWM is 0.72, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.72
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 28, 2023	0.74

The correlation between CARD and RWM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.74 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CARD vs. RWM — Risk / Return Rank

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

CARD

CARD Risk / Return Rank: 5
CARD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5
CARD Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
CARD Omega Ratio Rank: 6
CARD Calmar Ratio Rank: 3
CARD Martin Ratio Rank: 4

RWM

RWM Risk / Return Rank: 0
RWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 0
RWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 1
RWM Omega Ratio Rank: 1
RWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 0
RWM Martin Ratio Rank: 0

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.

CARD vs. RWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Max Auto Industry -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (CARD) and ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM). 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.

	CARD	RWM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.46	-1.40	+0.94
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.29	-2.02	+1.73
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.97	0.78	+0.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.70	-0.98	+0.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.02	-1.74	+0.72

CARD vs. RWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CARD Sharpe Ratio is -0.46, which is higher than the RWM Sharpe Ratio of -1.40. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CARD and RWM, 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

CARD vs. RWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CARD drawdown since its inception was -93.51%, roughly equal to the maximum RWM drawdown of -95.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CARD and RWM.

Drawdown Indicators

	CARD	RWM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-93.51%	-95.60%	+2.09%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-46.42%	-28.13%	-18.29%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-43.03%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-43.03%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-74.46%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-92.23%	-95.60%	+3.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-68.74%	-74.09%	+5.35%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	31.58%	15.73%	+15.85%

Volatility

CARD vs. RWM - Volatility Comparison

Max Auto Industry -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (CARD) has a higher volatility of 23.68% compared to ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) at 6.61%. This indicates that CARD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RWM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CARD	RWM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	23.68%	6.61%	+17.07%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	52.62%	14.32%	+38.30%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	70.15%	19.63%	+50.52%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	80.69%	22.64%	+58.05%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	80.69%	23.14%	+57.55%

CARD vs. RWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both CARD and RWM have an expense ratio of 0.95%.

Dividends

CARD vs. RWM - Dividend Comparison

CARD has not paid dividends to shareholders, while RWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.30%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CARD Max Auto Industry -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RWM ProShares Short Russell2000	4.30%	3.97%	6.03%	4.78%	0.39%	0.00%	0.20%	1.55%	0.87%	0.07%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CARD and RWM in my portfolio?

CARD and RWM have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CARD or RWM?

CARD has higher volatility (23.68%) compared to RWM (6.61%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CARD dropped -93.51% vs RWM's -95.60%.

Which ETF is better, CARD or RWM?

On 1-year performance, RWM leads with -27.36% vs -32.26% for CARD. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, RWM has been the lower-risk option at 6.61%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CARD or RWM?

Over the 1-year period, RWM has performed better with a -27.36% return vs -32.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CARD or RWM?

CARD and RWM have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CARD or RWM?

RWM has the higher dividend yield at 4.30%, compared with 0.00% for CARD.

What is the main difference between CARD and RWM?

CARD tracks Prime Auto Industry Index - Benchmark TR Net (--300%), while RWM tracks Russell 2000 (-100%). They also come from different issuers: Max and ProShares.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CARD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.46 vs -1.40), 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.