MZZ vs. XMMO
MZZ (ProShares UltraShort MidCap400) and XMMO (Invesco S&P MidCap Momentum ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MZZ is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the S&P MidCap 400 Index (-200%), while XMMO is a Momentum fund tracking the S&P MidCap 400 Momentum Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, MZZ returned -24.79%/yr vs 18.76%/yr for XMMO. At a correlation of -0.87, they often move in opposite directions. MZZ charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for XMMO.
Performance
MZZ vs. XMMO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MZZ achieves a -23.87% return, which is significantly lower than XMMO's 17.03% return. Over the past 10 years, MZZ has underperformed XMMO with an annualized return of -24.79%, while XMMO has yielded a comparatively higher 18.76% annualized return.
MZZ
- 1D
- -0.17%
- 1M
- 0.80%
- 6M
- -16.61%
- YTD
- -23.87%
- 1Y
- -29.15%
- 3Y*
- -20.89%
- 5Y*
- -16.96%
- 10Y*
- -24.79%
XMMO
- 1D
- -0.59%
- 1M
- -4.68%
- 6M
- 14.66%
- YTD
- 17.03%
- 1Y
- 25.70%
- 3Y*
- 26.81%
- 5Y*
- 14.51%
- 10Y*
- 18.76%
MZZ vs. XMMO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MZZ ProShares UltraShort MidCap400 | -23.87% | -14.68% | -17.75% | -23.67% | 13.02% | -42.14% | -53.08% | -38.03% | 22.83% | -27.72% |
XMMO Invesco S&P MidCap Momentum ETF | 17.03% | 13.04% | 38.03% | 20.39% | -16.02% | 16.69% | 29.17% | 36.78% | 6.12% | 37.18% |
Correlation
The correlation between MZZ and XMMO is -0.85, 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 | -0.85 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | -0.89 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.91 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | -0.84 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 13, 2006 | -0.87 |
The correlation between MZZ and XMMO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from -0.91 to -0.84 - 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. XMMO — Risk / Return Rank
MZZ
XMMO
MZZ vs. XMMO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares UltraShort MidCap400 (MZZ) and Invesco S&P MidCap Momentum ETF (XMMO). 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 | XMMO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.11 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.93 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.87 | 1.22 | -0.36 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.80 | 3.02 | -3.82 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.48 | 10.46 | -11.94 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
MZZ vs. XMMO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MZZ drawdown since its inception was -99.90%, which is greater than XMMO's maximum drawdown of -55.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MZZ and XMMO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MZZ | XMMO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -99.90% | -55.37% | -44.53% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -35.02% | -8.34% | -26.68% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -64.13% | -24.93% | -39.20% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -70.29% | -27.91% | -42.38% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -94.79% | -36.74% | -58.05% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -99.90% | -7.08% | -92.82% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -86.13% | -9.42% | -76.71% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 18.96% | 2.40% | +16.56% |
Volatility
MZZ vs. XMMO - Volatility Comparison
ProShares UltraShort MidCap400 (MZZ) has a higher volatility of 9.27% compared to Invesco S&P MidCap Momentum ETF (XMMO) at 8.30%. This indicates that MZZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XMMO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MZZ | XMMO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 9.27% | 8.30% | +0.97% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 23.59% | 17.45% | +6.14% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 31.72% | 20.56% | +11.16% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 39.15% | 21.75% | +17.40% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 41.23% | 22.33% | +18.90% |
MZZ vs. XMMO - Expense Ratio Comparison
MZZ has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than XMMO's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
MZZ vs. XMMO - Dividend Comparison
MZZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.67%, more than XMMO's 0.60% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MZZ ProShares UltraShort MidCap400 | 5.67% | 5.27% | 6.36% | 4.52% | 0.25% | 0.00% | 0.22% | 1.53% | 0.53% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
XMMO Invesco S&P MidCap Momentum ETF | 0.60% | 0.78% | 0.34% | 0.80% | 1.43% | 0.41% | 0.61% | 0.60% | 0.19% | 0.21% | 0.22% | 0.64% |
Frequently Asked Questions
MZZ and XMMO have a correlation of -0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
MZZ has higher volatility (9.27%) compared to XMMO (8.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MZZ dropped -99.90% vs XMMO's -55.37%.
On 10-year performance, XMMO leads with 18.76% vs -24.79% for MZZ. On fees, XMMO is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, XMMO has been the lower-risk option at 8.30%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, XMMO has performed better with a 18.76% return vs -24.79%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
XMMO is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for MZZ.
MZZ has the higher dividend yield at 5.67%, compared with 0.60% for XMMO.
MZZ is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while XMMO is Momentum. MZZ tracks S&P MidCap 400 Index (-200%), while XMMO tracks S&P MidCap 400 Momentum Index. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for MZZ and 0.35% for XMMO.
XMMO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.22 vs -0.88), 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 XMMO
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