EUM vs. FLYD

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

EUM (ProShares Short MSCI Emerging Markets) and FLYD (MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs) are both Inverse Equities funds - EUM tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets Index (-100%) while FLYD tracks the MerQube MicroSectors U.S. Travel Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, EUM returned -15.89%/yr vs -56.28%/yr for FLYD. A 0.52 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

EUM vs. FLYD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Short MSCI Emerging Markets (EUM) and MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs (FLYD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EUM achieves a -21.23% return, which is significantly higher than FLYD's -30.35% return.

EUM

• 1D: -1.02%
• 1M: -0.61%
• YTD: -21.23%
• 6M: -21.58%
• 1Y: -30.32%
• 3Y*: -15.89%
• 5Y*: -5.11%
• 10Y*: -10.61%

FLYD

• 1D: 3.79%
• 1M: -24.33%
• YTD: -30.35%
• 6M: -26.65%
• 1Y: -55.29%
• 3Y*: -56.28%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EUM vs. FLYD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
EUM ProShares Short MSCI Emerging Markets	-21.23%	-22.61%	-0.83%	-3.89%	4.66%
FLYD MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs	-30.35%	-60.42%	-54.13%	-75.14%	-46.63%

Correlation

The correlation between EUM and FLYD is 0.47, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.47
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.49
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 22, 2022	0.52

The correlation between EUM and FLYD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.47 to 0.52 - a consistent structural relationship.

EUM vs. FLYD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EUM	FLYD
Financial Services	52.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	7.8%
Consumer Cyclical	-	51.1%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	27.8%
Real Estate	-	0.1%
Technology	-	13.2%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

EUM vs. FLYD — Risk / Return Rank

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

EUM

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

FLYD

FLYD Risk / Return Rank: 2
FLYD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
FLYD Sortino Ratio Rank: 4
FLYD Omega Ratio Rank: 4
FLYD Calmar Ratio Rank: 0
FLYD 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.

EUM vs. FLYD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Short MSCI Emerging Markets (EUM) and MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs (FLYD). 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.

	EUM	FLYD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-1.31	-0.73	-0.58
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.99	-0.90	-1.10
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.77	0.90	-0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.92	-1.01	+0.09
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.84	-2.07	+0.23

EUM vs. FLYD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EUM Sharpe Ratio is -1.31, which is lower than the FLYD Sharpe Ratio of -0.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EUM and FLYD, 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

EUM vs. FLYD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EUM drawdown since its inception was -93.19%, smaller than the maximum FLYD drawdown of -98.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EUM and FLYD.

Drawdown Indicators

	EUM	FLYD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-93.19%	-98.45%	+5.26%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-33.23%	-55.15%	+21.92%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-47.97%	-94.61%	+46.64%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-50.87%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-67.83%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-92.89%	-98.39%	+5.50%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-77.20%	-83.26%	+6.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	16.56%	30.03%	-13.47%

Volatility

EUM vs. FLYD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ProShares Short MSCI Emerging Markets (EUM) is 11.91%, while MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs (FLYD) has a volatility of 26.01%. This indicates that EUM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLYD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EUM	FLYD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.91%	26.01%	-14.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.01%	62.95%	-41.94%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.14%	75.71%	-52.57%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.78%	83.83%	-64.05%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.71%	83.83%	-63.12%

EUM vs. FLYD - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both EUM and FLYD have an expense ratio of 0.95%.

Dividends

EUM vs. FLYD - Dividend Comparison

EUM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.28%, while FLYD has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
EUM ProShares Short MSCI Emerging Markets	4.28%	3.98%	4.22%	3.86%	0.82%	0.00%	0.15%	1.35%	0.88%
FLYD MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EUM and FLYD in my portfolio?

EUM and FLYD have a correlation of 0.47, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EUM or FLYD?

FLYD has higher volatility (26.01%) compared to EUM (11.91%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EUM dropped -93.19% vs FLYD's -98.45%.

Which ETF is better, EUM or FLYD?

On 3-year performance, EUM leads with -15.89% vs -56.28% for FLYD. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, EUM has been the lower-risk option at 11.91%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EUM or FLYD?

Over the 3-year period, EUM has performed better with a -15.89% return vs -56.28%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EUM or FLYD?

EUM and FLYD have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EUM or FLYD?

EUM has the higher dividend yield at 4.28%, compared with 0.00% for FLYD.

What is the main difference between EUM and FLYD?

EUM tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Index (-100%), while FLYD tracks MerQube MicroSectors U.S. Travel Index. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and REX.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLYD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.73 vs -1.31), 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.