ROM vs. INTW

Last updated Jun 28, 2026

ROM (ProShares Ultra Technology) and INTW (GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. ROM is passively managed, while INTW is actively managed. Over the past year, ROM returned 87.84% vs 1579.84% for INTW. At a 0.49 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ROM charges 0.95%/yr vs 1.50%/yr for INTW.

Performance

ROM vs. INTW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Ultra Technology (ROM) and GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ROM achieves a 48.47% return, which is significantly lower than INTW's 691.84% return.

ROM

• 1D: -4.05%
• 1M: -8.02%
• YTD: 48.47%
• 6M: 43.07%
• 1Y: 87.84%
• 3Y*: 47.89%
• 5Y*: 24.74%
• 10Y*: 41.60%

INTW

• 1D: -7.93%
• 1M: 2.79%
• YTD: 691.84%
• 6M: 720.56%
• 1Y: 1,579.84%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ROM vs. INTW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
ROM ProShares Ultra Technology	48.47%	33.83%
INTW GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF	691.84%	60.89%

Correlation

The correlation between ROM and INTW is 0.48, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.48
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 13, 2025	0.49

ROM vs. INTW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ROM	INTW
Technology	54.8%	66.7%
Financial Services	3.0%	-
Energy	0.1%	-
Industrials	0.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

ROM vs. INTW — Risk / Return Rank

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

ROM

ROM Risk / Return Rank: 57
ROM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
ROM Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
ROM Omega Ratio Rank: 53
ROM Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
ROM Martin Ratio Rank: 51

INTW

INTW Risk / Return Rank: 98
INTW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
INTW Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
INTW Omega Ratio Rank: 94
INTW Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
INTW Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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.

ROM vs. INTW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra Technology (ROM) and GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW). 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.

	ROM	INTW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.86	10.86	-9.00
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.25	4.87	-2.63
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.61	-0.31
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.71	33.01	-30.30
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.85	74.69	-66.85

ROM vs. INTW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ROM Sharpe Ratio is 1.86, which is lower than the INTW Sharpe Ratio of 10.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ROM and INTW, 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

ROM vs. INTW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ROM drawdown since its inception was -83.36%, which is greater than INTW's maximum drawdown of -60.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ROM and INTW.

Drawdown Indicators

	ROM	INTW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-83.36%	-60.58%	-22.78%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-32.33%	-49.34%	+17.01%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-48.10%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-67.55%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-67.55%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-18.14%	-18.50%	+0.36%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-20.85%	-29.53%	+8.68%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.15%	21.76%	-10.61%

Volatility

ROM vs. INTW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ProShares Ultra Technology (ROM) is 25.16%, while GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW) has a volatility of 56.16%. This indicates that ROM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than INTW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ROM	INTW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	25.16%	56.16%	-31.00%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	39.71%	119.44%	-79.73%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	47.18%	149.96%	-102.78%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	52.55%	148.44%	-95.89%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	50.21%	148.44%	-98.23%

ROM vs. INTW - Expense Ratio Comparison

ROM has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is lower than INTW's 1.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

ROM vs. INTW - Dividend Comparison

ROM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.06%, while INTW has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
INTW GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ROM ProShares Ultra Technology	0.06%	0.24%	0.21%	0.01%	0.00%	0.00%	0.05%	0.16%	0.30%	0.08%	0.20%	0.12%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ROM and INTW in my portfolio?

ROM and INTW have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ROM or INTW?

INTW has higher volatility (56.16%) compared to ROM (25.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ROM dropped -83.36% vs INTW's -60.58%.

Which ETF is better, ROM or INTW?

On 1-year performance, INTW leads with 1579.84% vs 87.84% for ROM. On fees, ROM is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, ROM has been the lower-risk option at 25.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ROM or INTW?

Over the 1-year period, INTW has performed better with a 1579.84% return vs 87.84%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ROM or INTW?

ROM is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for INTW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ROM or INTW?

ROM has the higher dividend yield at 0.06%, compared with 0.00% for INTW.

What is the main difference between ROM and INTW?

They also come from different issuers: ProShares and GraniteShares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for ROM and 1.50% for INTW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

INTW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (10.86 vs 1.86), 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.