RWM vs. CARD
RWM (ProShares Short Russell2000) and CARD (Max Auto Industry -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN) are both Inverse Equities funds - RWM tracks the Russell 2000 (-100%) while CARD tracks the Prime Auto Industry Index - Benchmark TR Net (--300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, RWM returned -11.17%/yr vs -49.61%/yr for CARD. Their 0.73 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.
Performance
RWM vs. CARD - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, RWM achieves a -16.04% return, which is significantly lower than CARD's -11.90% return.
RWM
- 1D
- -1.60%
- 1M
- 0.82%
- 6M
- -10.93%
- YTD
- -16.04%
- 1Y
- -26.16%
- 3Y*
- -11.17%
- 5Y*
- -6.29%
- 10Y*
- -11.48%
- ALL TIME*
- -12.05%
CARD
- 1D
- -3.27%
- 1M
- -1.66%
- 6M
- -9.54%
- YTD
- -11.90%
- 1Y
- -40.90%
- 3Y*
- -49.61%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- -52.65%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $42.40K | $47.06K | $45.44K | |
| $356.63M | $306.99M | $253.47M |
RWM vs. CARD - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
RWM ProShares Short Russell2000 | -16.04% | -9.40% | -5.91% | -6.89% |
CARD Max Auto Industry -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN | -11.90% | -60.21% | -58.19% | -32.77% |
Correlation
The correlation between RWM and CARD is 0.69, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.69 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.73 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 28, 2023 | 0.73 |
The correlation between RWM and CARD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.69 to 0.73 - 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
RWM vs. CARD — Risk / Return Rank
RWM
CARD
RWM vs. CARD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) and Max Auto Industry -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (CARD). 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.
| RWM | CARD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.80 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.42 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.79 | 0.94 | -0.15 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -1.01 | -0.94 | -0.07 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.68 | -1.47 | -0.21 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
RWM vs. CARD - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum RWM drawdown since its inception was -95.61%, roughly equal to the maximum CARD drawdown of -93.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RWM and CARD.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| RWM | CARD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -95.61% | -93.74% | -1.87% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -25.97% | -43.65% | +17.68% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -43.12% | -93.74% | +50.62% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -43.12% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -72.51% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -95.52% | -93.38% | -2.14% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -74.21% | -69.59% | -4.62% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 17.24% | 29.28% | -12.04% |
Volatility
RWM vs. CARD - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) is 4.04%, while Max Auto Industry -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (CARD) has a volatility of 23.55%. This indicates that RWM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CARD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| RWM | CARD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.04% | 23.55% | -19.51% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.08% | 54.51% | -40.43% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.24% | 72.06% | -52.82% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 22.52% | 80.48% | -57.96% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 23.10% | 80.48% | -57.38% |
RWM vs. CARD - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both RWM and CARD have an expense ratio of 0.95%.
Dividends
RWM vs. CARD - Dividend Comparison
RWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.80%, while CARD has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CARD Max Auto Industry -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
RWM ProShares Short Russell2000 | 3.80% | 3.97% | 6.03% | 4.78% | 0.39% | 0.00% | 0.20% | 1.55% | 0.87% | 0.07% |
Frequently Asked Questions
RWM and CARD have a correlation of 0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CARD has higher volatility (23.55%) compared to RWM (4.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RWM dropped -95.61% vs CARD's -93.74%.
On 3-year performance, RWM leads with -11.17% vs -49.61% for CARD. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, RWM has been the lower-risk option at 4.04%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, RWM has performed better with a -11.17% return vs -49.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
RWM and CARD have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.
RWM has the higher dividend yield at 3.80%, compared with 0.00% for CARD.
RWM tracks Russell 2000 (-100%), while CARD tracks Prime Auto Industry Index - Benchmark TR Net (--300%). They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Max.
CARD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.57 vs -1.37), 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 RWM and CARD
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