MZZ vs. NUG
MZZ (ProShares UltraShort MidCap400) and NUG (Leverage Shares 2X Long NU Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. MZZ is passively managed, while NUG is actively managed. At a correlation of -0.50, they often move in opposite directions. MZZ charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for NUG.
Performance
MZZ vs. NUG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MZZ achieves a -23.67% return, which is significantly higher than NUG's -37.38% return.
MZZ
- 1D
- -2.21%
- 1M
- 0.96%
- 6M
- -16.58%
- YTD
- -23.67%
- 1Y
- -30.02%
- 3Y*
- -20.04%
- 5Y*
- -17.51%
- 10Y*
- -24.70%
- ALL TIME*
- -26.24%
NUG
- 1D
- 5.05%
- 1M
- 25.01%
- 6M
- -38.49%
- YTD
- -37.38%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
MZZ vs. NUG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
MZZ ProShares UltraShort MidCap400 | -23.67% | -6.10% |
NUG Leverage Shares 2X Long NU Daily ETF | -37.38% | 9.30% |
Correlation
The correlation between MZZ and NUG is -0.50, 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 17, 2025 | -0.50 |
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. NUG — Risk / Return Rank
MZZ
NUG
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
MZZ vs. NUG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares UltraShort MidCap400 (MZZ) and Leverage Shares 2X Long NU Daily ETF (NUG). 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.
| MZZ | NUG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.85 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.86 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.53 | — | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
MZZ vs. NUG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MZZ drawdown since its inception was -99.90%, which is greater than NUG's maximum drawdown of -66.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MZZ and NUG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MZZ | NUG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -99.90% | -66.15% | -33.75% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -35.02% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -64.13% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -70.29% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -94.79% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -99.90% | -49.34% | -50.56% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -86.15% | -34.55% | -51.60% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 19.69% | — | — |
Volatility
MZZ vs. NUG - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MZZ | NUG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.99% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 23.67% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 31.56% | 79.01% | -47.45% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 39.02% | 79.01% | -39.99% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 41.24% | 79.01% | -37.77% |
MZZ vs. NUG - Expense Ratio Comparison
MZZ has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than NUG's 0.75% expense ratio.
Dividends
MZZ vs. NUG - Dividend Comparison
MZZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.66%, while NUG has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MZZ ProShares UltraShort MidCap400 | 5.66% | 5.27% | 6.36% | 4.52% | 0.25% | 0.00% | 0.22% | 1.53% | 0.53% |
NUG Leverage Shares 2X Long NU Daily ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
MZZ and NUG have a correlation of -0.50, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, NUG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
NUG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for MZZ.
MZZ has the higher dividend yield at 5.66%, compared with 0.00% for NUG.
They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Leverage Shares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for MZZ and 0.75% for NUG.
Find the right allocation for MZZ and NUG
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