PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
RWM vs. DOG
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

RWM vs. DOG

Last updated Aug 4, 2026
Documentation

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 -11.48%/yr vs -11.12%/yr for DOG. Their correlation of 0.81 means they have usually moved in the same direction. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

RWM vs. DOG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) and ProShares Short Dow30 (DOG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RWM achieves a -16.04% return, which is significantly lower than DOG's -7.91% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with RWM having a -11.48% annualized return and DOG not far ahead at -11.12%.

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%

DOG

1D
-1.25%
1M
-0.23%
6M
-5.66%
YTD
-7.91%
1Y
-14.94%
3Y*
-8.74%
5Y*
-5.96%
10Y*
-11.12%
ALL TIME*
-10.39%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

DOG

ProShares Short Dow30
$40.68M$37.60M$41.71M

RWM

ProShares Short Russell2000
$356.63M$306.99M$253.47M

RWM vs. DOG - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
RWM
ProShares Short Russell2000		-16.04%-9.40%-5.91%-10.43%18.34%-17.90%-31.04%-19.83%11.57%-13.61%
DOG
ProShares Short Dow30		-7.91%-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 0.75, 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.

0.75

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.77

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.80

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

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 0.75 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

RWM vs. DOG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
RWM
DOG

Financial Services

88.7%
82.8%

Basic Materials

-

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Industrials

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Technology

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Financial Services

RWM
88.7%
DOG
82.8%

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.

ProShares Short Russell2000

ProShares Short Dow30

Often compared with RWM:
RWM vs. IWMRWM vs. QIDRWM vs. TWMRWM vs. PSQRWM vs. SPYRWM vs. QQQRWM vs. SH
Often compared with DOG:
DOG vs. DXDDOG vs. SHDOG vs. PSQDOG vs. DIADOG vs. UDOWDOG vs. TZADOG vs. SPY

Return for Risk

RWM vs. DOG — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
RWM
RWM Risk / Return Rank: 00
Overall Rank
RWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 00
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 11
Sortino Ratio Rank
RWM Omega Ratio Rank: 11
Omega Ratio Rank
RWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 00
Calmar Ratio Rank
RWM Martin Ratio Rank: 00
Martin Ratio Rank
DOG
DOG Risk / Return Rank: 11
Overall Rank
DOG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 00
Sharpe Ratio Rank
DOG Sortino Ratio Rank: 11
Sortino Ratio Rank
DOG Omega Ratio Rank: 11
Omega Ratio Rank
DOG Calmar Ratio Rank: 00
Calmar Ratio Rank
DOG Martin Ratio Rank: 00
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

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.

RWMDOGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
-1.37
-1.20

-0.17

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
-1.94
-1.64

-0.30

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

0.79

0.82

-0.03

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

-1.01

-1.05

+0.04

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

-1.68

-1.87

+0.20

RWM vs. DOG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RWM Sharpe Ratio is -1.37, which is comparable to the DOG Sharpe Ratio of -1.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RWM and DOG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

RWM vs. DOG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RWM drawdown since its inception was -95.61%, roughly equal to the maximum DOG drawdown of -92.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RWM and DOG.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

RWMDOGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-95.61%

-92.90%

-2.71%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-25.97%

-14.32%

-11.65%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-43.12%

-30.86%

-12.26%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-43.12%

-35.93%

-7.19%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-72.51%

-70.07%

-2.44%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-95.52%

-92.90%

-2.62%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-74.21%

-66.59%

-7.62%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

17.24%

8.65%

+8.59%

Volatility

RWM vs. DOG - Volatility Comparison

ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) has a higher volatility of 4.04% compared to ProShares Short Dow30 (DOG) at 3.81%. 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

RWMDOGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.04%

3.81%

+0.23%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.08%

10.01%

+4.07%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

19.24%

12.57%

+6.67%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.52%

14.84%

+7.68%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

23.10%

17.50%

+5.60%

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 3.80%, more than DOG's 3.43% yield.

PositionTTM202520242023202220212020201920182017
DOG
ProShares Short Dow30		3.43%3.65%5.72%4.54%0.41%0.00%0.14%1.54%0.86%0.04%
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 DOG have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

RWM has higher volatility (4.04%) compared to DOG (3.81%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RWM dropped -95.61% vs DOG's -92.90%.

On 10-year performance, DOG leads with -11.12% vs -11.48% for RWM. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, DOG has been the lower-risk option at 3.81%. 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 -11.12% return vs -11.48%. 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 3.80%, compared with 3.43% for DOG.

RWM tracks Russell 2000 (-100%), while DOG tracks DJ Industrial Average (-100%).

DOG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-1.20 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

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