LABU vs. RWM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LABU (Direxion Daily S&P Biotech Bull 3x Shares) and RWM (ProShares Short Russell2000) are both exchange-traded funds - LABU is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the S&P Biotechnology Select Industry Index (300%), while RWM is a Inverse Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 (-100%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, LABU returned -13.53%/yr vs -11.85%/yr for RWM. At a correlation of -0.70, they often move in opposite directions. LABU charges 1.12%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for RWM.

Performance

LABU vs. RWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Direxion Daily S&P Biotech Bull 3x Shares (LABU) 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, LABU achieves a 3.80% return, which is significantly higher than RWM's -13.83% return. Over the past 10 years, LABU has underperformed RWM with an annualized return of -13.53%, while RWM has yielded a comparatively higher -11.85% annualized return.

LABU

• 1D: 4.61%
• 1M: -11.09%
• YTD: 3.80%
• 6M: 3.63%
• 1Y: 195.85%
• 3Y*: 7.82%
• 5Y*: -32.76%
• 10Y*: -13.53%

RWM

• 1D: 1.37%
• 1M: -3.30%
• YTD: -13.83%
• 6M: -12.66%
• 1Y: -25.94%
• 3Y*: -12.10%
• 5Y*: -5.21%
• 10Y*: -11.85%

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

LABU vs. RWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
LABU Direxion Daily S&P Biotech Bull 3x Shares	3.80%	79.17%	-26.02%	-13.41%	-80.36%	-64.15%	74.66%	75.50%	-57.61%	149.12%
RWM ProShares Short Russell2000	-13.83%	-9.40%	-5.91%	-10.43%	18.34%	-17.90%	-31.04%	-19.83%	11.57%	-13.61%

Correlation

The correlation between LABU and RWM is -0.62, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.62
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.70
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.72
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	-0.69
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 29, 2015	-0.70

The correlation between LABU and RWM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from -0.72 to -0.62 - a consistent structural relationship.

LABU vs. RWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LABU	RWM
Healthcare	99.8%	-
Financial Services	0.2%	80.6%
Basic Materials	0.0%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

LABU vs. RWM — Risk / Return Rank

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

LABU

LABU Risk / Return Rank: 75
LABU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
LABU Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
LABU Omega Ratio Rank: 55
LABU Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
LABU Martin Ratio Rank: 87

RWM

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

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.

LABU vs. RWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Direxion Daily S&P Biotech Bull 3x Shares (LABU) 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.

	LABU	RWM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.60	-1.37	+3.97
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.93	-1.95	+4.88
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	0.79	+0.56
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.42	-0.95	+7.38
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.77	-1.65	+20.42
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LABU vs. RWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LABU Sharpe Ratio is 2.60, which is higher than the RWM Sharpe Ratio of -1.37. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LABU 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	LABU	RWM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.60	-1.37	+3.97
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.34	-0.23	-0.11
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	-0.14	-0.51	+0.37
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.24	-0.49	+0.25

Drawdowns

LABU vs. RWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LABU drawdown since its inception was -99.18%, roughly equal to the maximum RWM drawdown of -95.47%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LABU and RWM.

Drawdown Indicators

	LABU	RWM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-99.18%	-95.47%	-3.71%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-30.70%	-27.26%	-3.44%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-78.30%	-41.38%	-36.92%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-97.59%	-41.38%	-56.21%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-98.96%	-73.72%	-25.24%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-96.34%	-95.41%	-0.93%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-81.68%	-74.04%	-7.64%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.48%	15.73%	-5.25%

Volatility

LABU vs. RWM - Volatility Comparison

Direxion Daily S&P Biotech Bull 3x Shares (LABU) has a higher volatility of 27.83% compared to ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) at 5.84%. This indicates that LABU'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

	LABU	RWM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	27.83%	5.84%	+21.99%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	59.70%	13.52%	+46.18%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	75.91%	19.07%	+56.84%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	95.58%	22.56%	+73.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	95.42%	23.11%	+72.31%

LABU vs. RWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

LABU has a 1.12% expense ratio, which is higher than RWM's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

LABU vs. RWM - Dividend Comparison

LABU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.74%, less than RWM's 4.12% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
LABU Direxion Daily S&P Biotech Bull 3x Shares	0.74%	0.84%	0.35%	0.35%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.28%	0.64%	0.17%
RWM ProShares Short Russell2000	4.12%	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 LABU and RWM in my portfolio?

LABU and RWM have a correlation of -0.62, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LABU or RWM?

LABU has higher volatility (27.83%) compared to RWM (5.84%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LABU dropped -99.18% vs RWM's -95.47%.

Which ETF is better, LABU or RWM?

On 10-year performance, RWM leads with -11.85% vs -13.53% for LABU. On fees, RWM is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, RWM has been the lower-risk option at 5.84%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LABU or RWM?

Over the 10-year period, RWM has performed better with a -11.85% return vs -13.53%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LABU or RWM?

RWM is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.12% for LABU.

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

RWM has the higher dividend yield at 4.12%, compared with 0.74% for LABU.

What is the main difference between LABU and RWM?

LABU is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while RWM is Inverse Equities. LABU tracks S&P Biotechnology Select Industry Index (300%), while RWM tracks Russell 2000 (-100%). They also come from different issuers: Direxion and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 1.12% for LABU and 0.95% for RWM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LABU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.60 vs -1.37), 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.