RWM vs. FLYD
Compare and contrast key facts about ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) and MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs (FLYD).
RWM and FLYD are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. RWM is a passively managed fund by ProShares that tracks the performance of the Russell 2000 (-100%). It was launched on Jan 23, 2007. FLYD is a passively managed fund by REX that tracks the performance of the MerQube MicroSectors U.S. Travel Index. It was launched on Jun 22, 2022. Both RWM and FLYD are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Performance
RWM vs. FLYD - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
RWM vs. FLYD - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RWM ProShares Short Russell2000 | -0.52% | -9.40% | -5.91% | -10.43% | -6.20% |
FLYD MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs | 31.58% | -60.42% | -54.13% | -75.14% | -46.23% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, RWM achieves a -0.52% return, which is significantly lower than FLYD's 31.58% return.
RWM
- 1D
- -3.51%
- 1M
- 5.06%
- YTD
- -0.52%
- 6M
- -1.93%
- 1Y
- -19.15%
- 3Y*
- -8.15%
- 5Y*
- -2.92%
- 10Y*
- -11.01%
FLYD
- 1D
- -12.05%
- 1M
- 19.00%
- YTD
- 31.58%
- 6M
- 12.07%
- 1Y
- -60.68%
- 3Y*
- -51.49%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
RWM vs. FLYD - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both RWM and FLYD have an expense ratio of 0.95%.
Return for Risk
RWM vs. FLYD — Risk / Return Rank
RWM
FLYD
RWM vs. FLYD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) and MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs (FLYD). 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.
| RWM | FLYD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.83 | -0.66 | -0.17 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.09 | -0.66 | -0.43 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.87 | 0.91 | -0.04 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.54 | -0.73 | +0.19 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.74 | -0.83 | +0.09 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| RWM | FLYD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.83 | -0.66 | -0.17 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.13 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | -0.48 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.46 | -0.72 | +0.26 |
Correlation
The correlation between RWM and FLYD is 0.74, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Dividends
RWM vs. FLYD - Dividend Comparison
RWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.57%, while FLYD has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RWM ProShares Short Russell2000 | 3.57% | 3.97% | 6.03% | 4.78% | 0.39% | 0.00% | 0.20% | 1.55% | 0.87% | 0.07% |
FLYD MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Drawdowns
RWM vs. FLYD - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum RWM drawdown since its inception was -95.12%, roughly equal to the maximum FLYD drawdown of -97.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RWM and FLYD.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| RWM | FLYD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -95.12% | -97.96% | +2.84% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -34.53% | -82.41% | +47.88% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -36.80% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -71.94% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -94.70% | -96.97% | +2.27% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -73.85% | -82.45% | +8.60% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 25.23% | 72.38% | -47.15% |
Volatility
RWM vs. FLYD - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) is 7.47%, while MicroSectors Travel -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs (FLYD) has a volatility of 27.93%. This indicates that RWM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLYD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| RWM | FLYD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.47% | 27.93% | -20.46% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.43% | 54.96% | -40.53% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 23.18% | 92.80% | -69.62% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 22.58% | 83.50% | -60.92% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 23.07% | 83.50% | -60.43% |