FAS vs. UMDD

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

FAS (Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X Shares) and UMDD (ProShares UltraPro MidCap400) are both Leveraged Equities funds - FAS tracks the Russell 1000 Financial Services Index (300%) while UMDD tracks the S&P MidCap 400 Index (300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, FAS returned 19.57%/yr vs 11.46%/yr for UMDD. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FAS charges 1.00%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for UMDD.

Performance

FAS vs. UMDD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X Shares (FAS) and ProShares UltraPro MidCap400 (UMDD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FAS achieves a -19.73% return, which is significantly lower than UMDD's 31.54% return. Over the past 10 years, FAS has outperformed UMDD with an annualized return of 19.57%, while UMDD has yielded a comparatively lower 11.46% annualized return.

FAS

• 1D: -1.75%
• 1M: 3.08%
• YTD: -19.73%
• 6M: -13.42%
• 1Y: -7.77%
• 3Y*: 35.48%
• 5Y*: 5.32%
• 10Y*: 19.57%

UMDD

• 1D: 0.43%
• 1M: -0.66%
• YTD: 31.54%
• 6M: 30.82%
• 1Y: 55.88%
• 3Y*: 22.44%
• 5Y*: 1.30%
• 10Y*: 11.46%

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

FAS vs. UMDD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FAS Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X Shares	-19.73%	21.48%	84.47%	14.92%	-43.19%	116.59%	-34.97%	113.04%	-33.84%	67.37%
UMDD ProShares UltraPro MidCap400	31.54%	-2.57%	19.68%	27.21%	-49.60%	72.27%	-17.30%	78.90%	-40.29%	49.17%

Correlation

The correlation between FAS and UMDD is 0.64, 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	0.64
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.73
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.80
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 12, 2010	0.83

The correlation between FAS and UMDD shifts across timeframes, from 0.64 (1 year) to 0.83 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FAS vs. UMDD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FAS	UMDD
Financial Services	98.0%	7.1%
Technology	1.7%	9.0%
Industrials	0.2%	13.4%
Basic Materials	-	2.6%
Communication Services	-	0.5%
Consumer Cyclical	-	5.1%
Consumer Defensive	-	2.2%
Energy	-	2.7%
Healthcare	-	4.8%
Real Estate	-	3.9%
Utilities	-	1.6%

Return for Risk

FAS vs. UMDD — Risk / Return Rank

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

FAS

FAS Risk / Return Rank: 8
FAS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7
FAS Sortino Ratio Rank: 8
FAS Omega Ratio Rank: 8
FAS Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
FAS Martin Ratio Rank: 7

UMDD

UMDD Risk / Return Rank: 42
UMDD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
UMDD Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
UMDD Omega Ratio Rank: 37
UMDD Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
UMDD Martin Ratio Rank: 48

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.

FAS vs. UMDD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X Shares (FAS) and ProShares UltraPro MidCap400 (UMDD). 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.

	FAS	UMDD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.18	1.20	-1.38
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.04	1.80	-1.76
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.01	1.22	-0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.19	2.16	-2.35
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.44	7.21	-7.65
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FAS vs. UMDD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FAS Sharpe Ratio is -0.18, which is lower than the UMDD Sharpe Ratio of 1.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FAS and UMDD, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FAS	UMDD	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.18	1.20	-1.38
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.10	0.02	+0.07
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.32	0.18	+0.14
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.20	0.32	-0.12

Drawdowns

FAS vs. UMDD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FAS drawdown since its inception was -91.61%, which is greater than UMDD's maximum drawdown of -86.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FAS and UMDD.

Drawdown Indicators

	FAS	UMDD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-91.61%	-86.24%	-5.37%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-40.88%	-26.04%	-14.84%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-43.10%	-60.33%	+17.23%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-66.88%	-64.61%	-2.27%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-85.99%	-86.24%	+0.25%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-26.35%	-9.91%	-16.44%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-31.11%	-23.60%	-7.51%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	17.73%	7.78%	+9.95%

Volatility

FAS vs. UMDD - Volatility Comparison

Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X Shares (FAS) and ProShares UltraPro MidCap400 (UMDD) have volatilities of 12.20% and 12.43%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FAS	UMDD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.20%	12.43%	-0.23%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	33.21%	34.70%	-1.49%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	43.36%	47.01%	-3.65%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	55.59%	58.96%	-3.37%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	61.35%	62.31%	-0.96%

FAS vs. UMDD - Expense Ratio Comparison

FAS has a 1.00% expense ratio, which is higher than UMDD's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

FAS vs. UMDD - Dividend Comparison

FAS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 10.39%, more than UMDD's 0.80% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FAS Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X Shares	10.39%	8.21%	0.76%	1.77%	0.91%	0.60%	0.47%	0.62%	1.43%	0.11%	0.00%	0.00%
UMDD ProShares UltraPro MidCap400	0.80%	1.00%	0.76%	0.19%	0.49%	0.06%	0.08%	0.64%	0.32%	0.00%	0.03%	0.06%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FAS and UMDD in my portfolio?

FAS and UMDD have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FAS or UMDD?

UMDD has higher volatility (12.43%) compared to FAS (12.20%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FAS dropped -91.61% vs UMDD's -86.24%.

Which ETF is better, FAS or UMDD?

On 10-year performance, FAS leads with 19.57% vs 11.46% for UMDD. On fees, UMDD is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, FAS has been the lower-risk option at 12.20%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FAS or UMDD?

Over the 10-year period, FAS has performed better with a 19.57% return vs 11.46%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FAS or UMDD?

UMDD is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.00% for FAS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FAS or UMDD?

FAS has the higher dividend yield at 10.39%, compared with 0.80% for UMDD.

What is the main difference between FAS and UMDD?

FAS tracks Russell 1000 Financial Services Index (300%), while UMDD tracks S&P MidCap 400 Index (300%). They also come from different issuers: Direxion and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 1.00% for FAS and 0.95% for UMDD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

UMDD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.20 vs -0.18), 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.