GDXU vs. UMDD

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

GDXU (MicroSectors Gold Miners 3X Leveraged ETNs due June 29, 2040) and UMDD (ProShares UltraPro MidCap400) are both Leveraged Equities funds - GDXU tracks the S-Network MicroSectors Gold Miners Index while UMDD tracks the S&P MidCap 400 Index (300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GDXU returned -14.73%/yr vs 2.41%/yr for UMDD. At a 0.32 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

GDXU vs. UMDD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors Gold Miners 3X Leveraged ETNs due June 29, 2040 (GDXU) 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, GDXU achieves a -56.00% return, which is significantly lower than UMDD's 41.42% return.

GDXU

• 1D: 8.84%
• 1M: -50.11%
• YTD: -56.00%
• 6M: -55.92%
• 1Y: 30.95%
• 3Y*: 37.87%
• 5Y*: -14.73%
• 10Y*: —

UMDD

• 1D: 2.20%
• 1M: 10.73%
• YTD: 41.42%
• 6M: 35.75%
• 1Y: 66.43%
• 3Y*: 23.57%
• 5Y*: 2.41%
• 10Y*: 12.78%

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

GDXU vs. UMDD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
GDXU MicroSectors Gold Miners 3X Leveraged ETNs due June 29, 2040	-56.00%	796.47%	-18.60%	-21.36%	-62.82%	-54.93%	4.32%
UMDD ProShares UltraPro MidCap400	41.42%	-2.57%	19.68%	27.21%	-49.60%	72.27%	16.45%

Correlation

The correlation between GDXU and UMDD is 0.36, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.36
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.32
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.31
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 3, 2020	0.32

GDXU vs. UMDD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GDXU	UMDD
Basic Materials	100.0%	2.6%
Communication Services	-	0.5%
Consumer Cyclical	-	5.1%
Consumer Defensive	-	2.2%
Energy	-	2.7%
Financial Services	-	7.1%
Healthcare	-	4.8%
Industrials	-	13.4%
Real Estate	-	3.9%
Technology	-	9.0%
Utilities	-	1.6%

Return for Risk

GDXU vs. UMDD — Risk / Return Rank

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

GDXU

GDXU Risk / Return Rank: 19
GDXU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
GDXU Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
GDXU Omega Ratio Rank: 29
GDXU Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
GDXU Martin Ratio Rank: 14

UMDD

UMDD Risk / Return Rank: 49
UMDD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 45
UMDD Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
UMDD Omega Ratio Rank: 43
UMDD Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
UMDD Martin Ratio Rank: 56

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.

GDXU vs. UMDD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors Gold Miners 3X Leveraged ETNs due June 29, 2040 (GDXU) 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.

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.

	GDXU	UMDD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.22	1.40	-1.18
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.27	2.01	-0.74
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.24	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.37	2.56	-2.19
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.80	8.58	-7.78

GDXU vs. UMDD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GDXU Sharpe Ratio is 0.22, which is lower than the UMDD Sharpe Ratio of 1.40. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GDXU 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.

Drawdowns

GDXU vs. UMDD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GDXU drawdown since its inception was -94.39%, which is greater than UMDD's maximum drawdown of -86.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GDXU and UMDD.

Drawdown Indicators

	GDXU	UMDD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-94.39%	-86.24%	-8.15%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-83.97%	-26.04%	-57.93%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-83.97%	-60.33%	-23.64%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-92.44%	-64.61%	-27.83%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-86.24%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-79.58%	-3.15%	-76.43%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-69.77%	-23.58%	-46.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	38.59%	7.78%	+30.81%

Volatility

GDXU vs. UMDD - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors Gold Miners 3X Leveraged ETNs due June 29, 2040 (GDXU) has a higher volatility of 54.28% compared to ProShares UltraPro MidCap400 (UMDD) at 14.80%. This indicates that GDXU's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than UMDD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GDXU	UMDD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	54.28%	14.80%	+39.48%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	123.72%	35.26%	+88.46%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	142.00%	47.64%	+94.36%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	111.92%	59.05%	+52.87%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	110.82%	62.32%	+48.50%

GDXU vs. UMDD - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both GDXU and UMDD have an expense ratio of 0.95%.

Dividends

GDXU vs. UMDD - Dividend Comparison

GDXU has not paid dividends to shareholders, while UMDD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.74%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GDXU MicroSectors Gold Miners 3X Leveraged ETNs due June 29, 2040	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
UMDD ProShares UltraPro MidCap400	0.74%	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 GDXU and UMDD in my portfolio?

GDXU and UMDD have a correlation of 0.36, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GDXU or UMDD?

GDXU has higher volatility (54.28%) compared to UMDD (14.80%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GDXU dropped -94.39% vs UMDD's -86.24%.

Which ETF is better, GDXU or UMDD?

On 5-year performance, UMDD leads with 2.41% vs -14.73% for GDXU. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, UMDD has been the lower-risk option at 14.80%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GDXU or UMDD?

Over the 5-year period, UMDD has performed better with a 2.41% return vs -14.73%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GDXU or UMDD?

GDXU and UMDD have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.

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

UMDD has the higher dividend yield at 0.74%, compared with 0.00% for GDXU.

What is the main difference between GDXU and UMDD?

GDXU tracks S-Network MicroSectors Gold Miners Index, while UMDD tracks S&P MidCap 400 Index (300%). They also come from different issuers: BMO and ProShares.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

UMDD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.40 vs 0.22), 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.