MUD vs. EFZ

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

MUD (Direxion Daily MU Bear 1X Shares) and EFZ (ProShares Short MSCI EAFE) are both Inverse Equities funds. MUD is actively managed, while EFZ is passively managed. Over the past year, MUD returned -93.60% vs -17.18% for EFZ. At a 0.40 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MUD charges 0.97%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for EFZ.

Performance

MUD vs. EFZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Direxion Daily MU Bear 1X Shares (MUD) and ProShares Short MSCI EAFE (EFZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MUD achieves a -83.10% return, which is significantly lower than EFZ's -8.77% return.

MUD

• 1D: -6.93%
• 1M: -44.97%
• YTD: -83.10%
• 6M: -83.63%
• 1Y: -93.60%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EFZ

• 1D: 0.13%
• 1M: -1.95%
• YTD: -8.77%
• 6M: -9.09%
• 1Y: -17.18%
• 3Y*: -10.58%
• 5Y*: -6.10%
• 10Y*: -9.00%

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

MUD vs. EFZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MUD Direxion Daily MU Bear 1X Shares	-83.10%	-78.75%	19.12%
EFZ ProShares Short MSCI EAFE	-8.77%	-20.92%	8.36%

Correlation

The correlation between MUD and EFZ is 0.37, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.37
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 10, 2024	0.40

Return for Risk

MUD vs. EFZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

MUD

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

EFZ

EFZ Risk / Return Rank: 1
EFZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1
EFZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 2
EFZ Omega Ratio Rank: 2
EFZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 0
EFZ 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.

MUD vs. EFZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Direxion Daily MU Bear 1X Shares (MUD) and ProShares Short MSCI EAFE (EFZ). 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.

	MUD	EFZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-1.32	-1.03	-0.28
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-4.06	-1.43	-2.63
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.56	0.84	-0.28
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.99	-1.01	+0.02
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.46	-1.71	+0.25

MUD vs. EFZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MUD Sharpe Ratio is -1.32, which is comparable to the EFZ Sharpe Ratio of -1.03. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MUD and EFZ, 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

MUD vs. EFZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MUD drawdown since its inception was -96.89%, which is greater than EFZ's maximum drawdown of -88.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MUD and EFZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	MUD	EFZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-96.89%	-88.08%	-8.81%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-94.52%	-17.09%	-77.43%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-35.42%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-43.77%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-61.88%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-96.89%	-88.05%	-8.84%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-51.50%	-67.12%	+15.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	64.02%	10.31%	+53.71%

Volatility

MUD vs. EFZ - Volatility Comparison

Direxion Daily MU Bear 1X Shares (MUD) has a higher volatility of 35.25% compared to ProShares Short MSCI EAFE (EFZ) at 5.00%. This indicates that MUD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EFZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MUD	EFZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	35.25%	5.00%	+30.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	61.23%	13.99%	+47.24%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	71.36%	16.73%	+54.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	69.34%	16.82%	+52.52%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	69.34%	17.36%	+51.98%

MUD vs. EFZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

MUD has a 0.97% expense ratio, which is higher than EFZ's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

MUD vs. EFZ - Dividend Comparison

MUD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 34.86%, more than EFZ's 4.12% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
EFZ ProShares Short MSCI EAFE	4.12%	4.55%	5.29%	4.66%	0.57%	0.00%	0.04%	1.56%	0.34%
MUD Direxion Daily MU Bear 1X Shares	34.86%	9.21%	0.47%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MUD and EFZ in my portfolio?

MUD and EFZ have a correlation of 0.37, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MUD or EFZ?

MUD has higher volatility (35.25%) compared to EFZ (5.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MUD dropped -96.89% vs EFZ's -88.08%.

Which ETF is better, MUD or EFZ?

On 1-year performance, EFZ leads with -17.18% vs -93.60% for MUD. On fees, EFZ is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, EFZ has been the lower-risk option at 5.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MUD or EFZ?

Over the 1-year period, EFZ has performed better with a -17.18% return vs -93.60%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MUD or EFZ?

EFZ is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 0.97% for MUD.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MUD or EFZ?

MUD has the higher dividend yield at 34.86%, compared with 4.12% for EFZ.

What is the main difference between MUD and EFZ?

They also come from different issuers: Direxion and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.97% for MUD and 0.95% for EFZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EFZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-1.03 vs -1.32), 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.