RWM vs. GLD
RWM (ProShares Short Russell2000) and GLD (SPDR Gold Shares) are both exchange-traded funds - RWM is a Inverse Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 (-100%), while GLD is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RWM returned -11.66%/yr vs 11.36%/yr for GLD. At a correlation of -0.07, they often move in opposite directions. RWM charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for GLD.
Performance
RWM vs. GLD - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, RWM achieves a -15.79% return, which is significantly lower than GLD's -6.10% return. Over the past 10 years, RWM has underperformed GLD with an annualized return of -11.66%, while GLD has yielded a comparatively higher 11.36% annualized return.
RWM
- 1D
- -0.29%
- 1M
- -0.36%
- 6M
- -10.78%
- YTD
- -15.79%
- 1Y
- -22.93%
- 3Y*
- -11.37%
- 5Y*
- -6.34%
- 10Y*
- -11.66%
GLD
- 1D
- 1.37%
- 1M
- -3.72%
- 6M
- -11.74%
- YTD
- -6.10%
- 1Y
- 20.82%
- 3Y*
- 27.06%
- 5Y*
- 16.82%
- 10Y*
- 11.36%
RWM vs. GLD - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RWM ProShares Short Russell2000 | -15.79% | -9.40% | -5.91% | -10.43% | 18.34% | -17.90% | -31.04% | -19.83% | 11.57% | -13.61% |
GLD SPDR Gold Shares | -6.10% | 63.68% | 26.66% | 12.69% | -0.77% | -4.15% | 24.81% | 17.86% | -1.94% | 12.81% |
Correlation
The correlation between RWM and GLD is -0.30, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.30 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | -0.20 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.15 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | -0.07 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 25, 2007 | -0.07 |
Over the past year, the inverse relationship between RWM and GLD has strengthened: their correlation has moved from -0.07 to -0.30, meaning they now move in opposite directions more often than their long-term average.
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. GLD — Risk / Return Rank
RWM
GLD
RWM vs. GLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) and SPDR Gold Shares (GLD). 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 | GLD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.94 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.75 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.82 | 1.16 | -0.34 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.83 | 0.80 | -1.63 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.42 | 1.93 | -3.35 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
RWM vs. GLD - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum RWM drawdown since its inception was -95.61%, which is greater than GLD's maximum drawdown of -45.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RWM and GLD.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| RWM | GLD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -95.61% | -45.56% | -50.05% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -27.57% | -26.21% | -1.36% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -43.12% | -26.21% | -16.91% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -43.12% | -26.21% | -16.91% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -72.51% | -26.21% | -46.30% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -95.51% | -24.95% | -70.56% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -74.14% | -16.19% | -57.95% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 16.16% | 10.80% | +5.36% |
Volatility
RWM vs. GLD - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) is 3.80%, while SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) has a volatility of 6.99%. This indicates that RWM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GLD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| RWM | GLD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.80% | 6.99% | -3.19% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.15% | 24.21% | -10.06% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.39% | 27.93% | -8.54% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 22.58% | 18.40% | +4.18% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 23.08% | 16.10% | +6.98% |
RWM vs. GLD - Expense Ratio Comparison
RWM has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than GLD's 0.40% expense ratio.
Dividends
RWM vs. GLD - Dividend Comparison
RWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.79%, while GLD has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GLD SPDR Gold Shares | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
RWM ProShares Short Russell2000 | 3.79% | 3.97% | 6.03% | 4.78% | 0.39% | 0.00% | 0.20% | 1.55% | 0.87% | 0.07% |
Frequently Asked Questions
RWM and GLD have a correlation of -0.30, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
GLD has higher volatility (6.99%) compared to RWM (3.80%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RWM dropped -95.61% vs GLD's -45.56%.
On 10-year performance, GLD leads with 11.36% vs -11.66% for RWM. On fees, GLD is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, RWM has been the lower-risk option at 3.80%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, GLD has performed better with a 11.36% return vs -11.66%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GLD is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for RWM.
RWM has the higher dividend yield at 3.79%, compared with 0.00% for GLD.
RWM is categorized as Inverse Equities, while GLD is Gold. RWM tracks Russell 2000 (-100%), while GLD tracks LBMA Gold Price PM. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for RWM and 0.40% for GLD.
GLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.75 vs -1.19), 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 GLD
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