REW vs. MULL
REW (ProShares UltraShort Technology) and MULL (GraniteShares 2x Long MU Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. REW is passively managed, while MULL is actively managed. Over the past year, REW returned -65.29% vs 6074.28% for MULL. At a correlation of -0.66, they often move in opposite directions. REW charges 0.95%/yr vs 1.50%/yr for MULL.
Performance
REW vs. MULL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, REW achieves a -48.44% return, which is significantly lower than MULL's 936.86% return.
REW
- 1D
- 2.13%
- 1M
- -32.71%
- YTD
- -48.44%
- 6M
- -47.77%
- 1Y
- -65.29%
- 3Y*
- -47.19%
- 5Y*
- -40.21%
- 10Y*
- -45.16%
MULL
- 1D
- 2.92%
- 1M
- 216.81%
- YTD
- 936.86%
- 6M
- 1,369.93%
- 1Y
- 6,074.28%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
REW vs. MULL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
REW ProShares UltraShort Technology | -48.44% | -43.15% | 3.41% |
MULL GraniteShares 2x Long MU Daily ETF | 936.86% | 558.51% | -40.10% |
Correlation
The correlation between REW and MULL is -0.60, 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 | -0.60 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 13, 2024 | -0.66 |
The correlation between REW and MULL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from -0.66 to -0.60 - 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
REW vs. MULL — Risk / Return Rank
REW
MULL
REW vs. MULL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares UltraShort Technology (REW) and GraniteShares 2x Long MU Daily ETF (MULL). 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.
| REW | MULL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -48.26 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -10.05 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.69 | 1.89 | -1.20 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.99 | 116.34 | -117.32 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -2.00 | 390.40 | -392.41 |
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
| REW | MULL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -1.56 | 46.71 | -48.26 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.78 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | -0.93 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.79 | 7.45 | -8.24 |
Drawdowns
REW vs. MULL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum REW drawdown since its inception was -99.99%, which is greater than MULL's maximum drawdown of -72.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for REW and MULL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| REW | MULL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -99.99% | -72.29% | -27.70% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -66.25% | -53.09% | -13.16% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -86.76% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -93.62% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -99.79% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -99.99% | 0.00% | -99.99% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -86.88% | -20.62% | -66.26% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 32.60% | 15.79% | +16.81% |
Volatility
REW vs. MULL - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for ProShares UltraShort Technology (REW) is 14.84%, while GraniteShares 2x Long MU Daily ETF (MULL) has a volatility of 55.41%. This indicates that REW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MULL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| REW | MULL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 14.84% | 55.41% | -40.57% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 34.14% | 105.59% | -71.45% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 42.11% | 132.38% | -90.27% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 51.64% | 136.22% | -84.58% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 48.83% | 136.22% | -87.39% |
REW vs. MULL - Expense Ratio Comparison
REW has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is lower than MULL's 1.50% expense ratio.
Dividends
REW vs. MULL - Dividend Comparison
REW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 11.04%, more than MULL's 0.04% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MULL GraniteShares 2x Long MU Daily ETF | 0.04% | 0.39% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
REW ProShares UltraShort Technology | 11.04% | 6.69% | 5.68% | 5.97% | 0.65% | 0.00% | 0.27% | 1.80% | 0.51% |
Frequently Asked Questions
REW and MULL have a correlation of -0.60, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
MULL has higher volatility (55.41%) compared to REW (14.84%). In terms of maximum drawdown, REW dropped -99.99% vs MULL's -72.29%.
On 1-year performance, MULL leads with 6074.28% vs -65.29% for REW. On fees, REW is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, REW has been the lower-risk option at 14.84%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, MULL has performed better with a 6074.28% return vs -65.29%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
REW is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for MULL.
REW has the higher dividend yield at 11.04%, compared with 0.04% for MULL.
They also come from different issuers: ProShares and GraniteShares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for REW and 1.50% for MULL.
MULL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (46.71 vs -1.56), 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 REW and MULL
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