MZZ vs. HOOG
MZZ (ProShares UltraShort MidCap400) and HOOG (Leverage Shares 2X Long HOOD Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. MZZ is passively managed, while HOOG is actively managed. Over the past year, MZZ returned -35.66% vs -10.21% for HOOG. At a correlation of -0.50, they often move in opposite directions. MZZ charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for HOOG.
Performance
MZZ vs. HOOG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MZZ achieves a -22.57% return, which is significantly higher than HOOG's -54.93% return.
MZZ
- 1D
- -1.64%
- 1M
- -5.89%
- YTD
- -22.57%
- 6M
- -23.66%
- 1Y
- -35.66%
- 3Y*
- -23.59%
- 5Y*
- -16.74%
- 10Y*
- -25.27%
HOOG
- 1D
- -5.81%
- 1M
- 36.06%
- YTD
- -54.93%
- 6M
- -65.13%
- 1Y
- -10.21%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
MZZ vs. HOOG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
MZZ ProShares UltraShort MidCap400 | -22.57% | -24.06% |
HOOG Leverage Shares 2X Long HOOD Daily ETF | -54.93% | 291.44% |
Correlation
The correlation between MZZ and HOOG is -0.45, 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 | -0.45 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 24, 2025 | -0.50 |
The correlation between MZZ and HOOG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from -0.50 to -0.45 - a consistent structural relationship.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
MZZ vs. HOOG — Risk / Return Rank
MZZ
HOOG
MZZ vs. HOOG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares UltraShort MidCap400 (MZZ) and Leverage Shares 2X Long HOOD Daily ETF (HOOG). 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.
| MZZ | HOOG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.15 | -0.08 | -1.07 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.65 | 0.91 | -2.56 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.81 | 1.11 | -0.30 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.99 | -0.07 | -0.92 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.73 | -0.11 | -1.62 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| MZZ | HOOG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -1.15 | -0.08 | -1.07 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.43 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | -0.61 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.60 | 0.42 | -1.02 |
Drawdowns
MZZ vs. HOOG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MZZ drawdown since its inception was -99.90%, which is greater than HOOG's maximum drawdown of -86.94%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MZZ and HOOG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MZZ | HOOG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -99.90% | -86.94% | -12.96% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -35.22% | -86.94% | +51.72% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -62.13% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -68.64% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -95.10% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -99.90% | -78.98% | -20.92% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -86.07% | -37.42% | -48.65% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 20.39% | 52.98% | -32.59% |
Volatility
MZZ vs. HOOG - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for ProShares UltraShort MidCap400 (MZZ) is 8.88%, while Leverage Shares 2X Long HOOD Daily ETF (HOOG) has a volatility of 39.61%. This indicates that MZZ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than HOOG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MZZ | HOOG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 8.88% | 39.61% | -30.73% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 22.99% | 100.22% | -77.23% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 31.15% | 136.66% | -105.51% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 39.16% | 144.66% | -105.50% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 41.39% | 144.66% | -103.27% |
MZZ vs. HOOG - Expense Ratio Comparison
MZZ has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than HOOG's 0.75% expense ratio.
Dividends
MZZ vs. HOOG - Dividend Comparison
MZZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.70%, less than HOOG's 27.30% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HOOG Leverage Shares 2X Long HOOD Daily ETF | 27.30% | 12.30% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
MZZ ProShares UltraShort MidCap400 | 6.70% | 5.27% | 6.36% | 4.52% | 0.25% | 0.00% | 0.22% | 1.53% | 0.53% |
Frequently Asked Questions
MZZ and HOOG have a correlation of -0.45, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
HOOG has higher volatility (39.61%) compared to MZZ (8.88%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MZZ dropped -99.90% vs HOOG's -86.94%.
On 1-year performance, HOOG leads with -10.21% vs -35.66% for MZZ. On fees, HOOG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, MZZ has been the lower-risk option at 8.88%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, HOOG has performed better with a -10.21% return vs -35.66%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
HOOG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for MZZ.
HOOG has the higher dividend yield at 27.30%, compared with 6.70% for MZZ.
They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Leverage Shares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for MZZ and 0.75% for HOOG.
HOOG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.07 vs -1.15), 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.
Find the right allocation for MZZ and HOOG
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer