RWM vs. DOG
RWM (ProShares Short Russell2000) and DOG (ProShares Short Dow30) are both Inverse Equities funds from ProShares - RWM tracks the Russell 2000 (-100%) while DOG tracks the DJ Industrial Average (-100%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RWM returned -12.35%/yr vs -11.50%/yr for DOG. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.
Performance
RWM vs. DOG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, RWM achieves a -16.29% return, which is significantly lower than DOG's -5.77% return. Over the past 10 years, RWM has underperformed DOG with an annualized return of -12.35%, while DOG has yielded a comparatively higher -11.50% annualized return.
RWM
- 1D
- 0.89%
- 1M
- -3.67%
- YTD
- -16.29%
- 6M
- -14.25%
- 1Y
- -27.19%
- 3Y*
- -13.21%
- 5Y*
- -5.30%
- 10Y*
- -12.35%
DOG
- 1D
- 0.05%
- 1M
- -2.00%
- YTD
- -5.77%
- 6M
- -4.85%
- 1Y
- -14.33%
- 3Y*
- -8.97%
- 5Y*
- -5.91%
- 10Y*
- -11.50%
RWM vs. DOG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RWM ProShares Short Russell2000 | -16.29% | -9.40% | -5.91% | -10.43% | 18.34% | -17.90% | -31.04% | -19.83% | 11.57% | -13.61% |
DOG ProShares Short Dow30 | -5.77% | -8.40% | -5.62% | -7.05% | 5.67% | -19.21% | -20.45% | -18.43% | 3.55% | -21.51% |
Correlation
The correlation between RWM and DOG is 0.77, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.77 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.77 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.80 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.78 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 25, 2007 | 0.81 |
The correlation between RWM and DOG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.77 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.
RWM vs. DOG - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
RWM
DOG
Financial Services
Basic Materials
-
-
Communication Services
-
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
-
Consumer Defensive
-
-
Energy
-
-
Healthcare
-
-
Industrials
-
-
Real Estate
-
-
Technology
-
-
Utilities
-
-
Financial Services
RWM
DOG
Basic Materials
RWM
-
DOG
-
Communication Services
RWM
-
DOG
-
Consumer Cyclical
RWM
-
DOG
-
Consumer Defensive
RWM
-
DOG
-
Energy
RWM
-
DOG
-
Healthcare
RWM
-
DOG
-
Industrials
RWM
-
DOG
-
Real Estate
RWM
-
DOG
-
Technology
RWM
-
DOG
-
Utilities
RWM
-
DOG
-
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. DOG — Risk / Return Rank
RWM
DOG
RWM vs. DOG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) and ProShares Short Dow30 (DOG). 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 | DOG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.24 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.43 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.78 | 0.82 | -0.04 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.98 | -1.02 | +0.03 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.74 | -1.82 | +0.08 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
RWM vs. DOG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum RWM drawdown since its inception was -95.58%, roughly equal to the maximum DOG drawdown of -92.79%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RWM and DOG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| RWM | DOG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -95.58% | -92.79% | -2.79% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -27.70% | -14.12% | -13.58% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -42.69% | -29.71% | -12.98% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -42.69% | -34.86% | -7.83% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -74.31% | -71.17% | -3.14% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -95.54% | -92.73% | -2.81% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -74.08% | -66.45% | -7.63% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 15.76% | 8.69% | +7.07% |
Volatility
RWM vs. DOG - Volatility Comparison
ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) has a higher volatility of 6.51% compared to ProShares Short Dow30 (DOG) at 4.15%. This indicates that RWM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DOG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| RWM | DOG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.51% | 4.15% | +2.36% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.28% | 9.86% | +4.42% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.61% | 12.45% | +7.16% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 22.64% | 14.83% | +7.81% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 23.14% | 17.49% | +5.65% |
RWM vs. DOG - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both RWM and DOG have an expense ratio of 0.95%.
Dividends
RWM vs. DOG - Dividend Comparison
RWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.24%, more than DOG's 3.55% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DOG ProShares Short Dow30 | 3.55% | 3.65% | 5.72% | 4.54% | 0.41% | 0.00% | 0.14% | 1.54% | 0.86% | 0.04% |
RWM ProShares Short Russell2000 | 4.24% | 3.97% | 6.03% | 4.78% | 0.39% | 0.00% | 0.20% | 1.55% | 0.87% | 0.07% |
Frequently Asked Questions
RWM and DOG have a correlation of 0.77, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
RWM has higher volatility (6.51%) compared to DOG (4.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RWM dropped -95.58% vs DOG's -92.79%.
On 10-year performance, DOG leads with -11.50% vs -12.35% for RWM. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, DOG has been the lower-risk option at 4.15%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, DOG has performed better with a -11.50% return vs -12.35%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
RWM and DOG have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.
RWM has the higher dividend yield at 4.24%, compared with 3.55% for DOG.
RWM tracks Russell 2000 (-100%), while DOG tracks DJ Industrial Average (-100%).
DOG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-1.16 vs -1.39), 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 DOG
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