RWM vs. CL
RWM (ProShares Short Russell2000) is Inverse Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 (-100%), while CL (Colgate-Palmolive Company) is a stock. Over the past 10 years, RWM returned -11.48%/yr vs 4.32%/yr for CL. Their -0.32 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past.
Performance
RWM vs. CL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, RWM achieves a -16.04% return, which is significantly lower than CL's 15.81% return. Over the past 10 years, RWM has underperformed CL with an annualized return of -11.48%, while CL has yielded a comparatively higher 4.32% annualized 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%
CL
- 1D
- -1.56%
- 1M
- -4.98%
- 6M
- -1.02%
- YTD
- 15.81%
- 1Y
- 10.32%
- 3Y*
- 8.13%
- 5Y*
- 5.29%
- 10Y*
- 4.32%
- ALL TIME*
- 10.24%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $438.91M | $420.67M | $461.04M | |
| $356.63M | $306.99M | $253.47M |
RWM vs. CL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RWM ProShares Short Russell2000 | -16.04% | -9.40% | -5.91% | -10.43% | 18.34% | -17.90% | -31.04% | -19.83% | 11.57% | -13.61% |
CL Colgate-Palmolive Company | 15.81% | -10.98% | 16.57% | 3.78% | -5.44% | 2.08% | 27.17% | 18.60% | -19.19% | 17.88% |
Correlation
The correlation between RWM and CL is 0.07, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.07 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | -0.03 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | -0.11 |
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions. | -0.16 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 25, 2007 | -0.32 |
The correlation between RWM and CL shifts across timeframes, from -0.32 (all time) to 0.07 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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. CL — Risk / Return Rank
RWM
CL
RWM vs. CL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) and Colgate-Palmolive Company (CL). 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 | CL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.83 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.77 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.79 | 1.09 | -0.30 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -1.01 | 0.61 | -1.62 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.68 | 1.22 | -2.90 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
RWM vs. CL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum RWM drawdown since its inception was -95.61%, which is greater than CL's maximum drawdown of -58.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RWM and CL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| RWM | CL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -95.61% | -58.91% | -36.70% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -25.97% | -16.97% | -9.00% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -43.12% | -29.05% | -14.07% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -43.12% | -29.05% | -14.07% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -72.51% | -29.05% | -43.46% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -95.52% | -13.40% | -82.12% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -74.21% | -11.24% | -62.97% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 17.24% | 8.49% | +8.75% |
Volatility
RWM vs. CL - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) is 4.04%, while Colgate-Palmolive Company (CL) has a volatility of 7.26%. This indicates that RWM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| RWM | CL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.04% | 7.26% | -3.22% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.08% | 16.91% | -2.83% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.24% | 22.50% | -3.26% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 22.52% | 18.99% | +3.53% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 23.10% | 19.88% | +3.22% |
Dividends
RWM vs. CL - Dividend Comparison
RWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.80%, more than CL's 2.34% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CL Colgate-Palmolive Company | 2.34% | 2.61% | 2.18% | 2.40% | 2.36% | 2.10% | 2.05% | 2.48% | 2.79% | 2.11% | 2.37% | 2.25% |
RWM ProShares Short Russell2000 | 3.80% | 3.97% | 6.03% | 4.78% | 0.39% | 0.00% | 0.20% | 1.55% | 0.87% | 0.07% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
RWM and CL have a correlation of 0.07, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CL has higher volatility (7.26%) compared to RWM (4.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RWM dropped -95.61% vs CL's -58.91%.
CL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.46 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 CL
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