PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

RWM vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

RWM (ProShares Short Russell2000) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RWM is a Inverse Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 (-100%), while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RWM returned -12.42%/yr vs 11.68%/yr for IWM. At a correlation of -0.99, they often move in opposite directions. RWM charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

RWM vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM). 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 -17.02% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 21.64% return. Over the past 10 years, RWM has underperformed IWM with an annualized return of -12.42%, while IWM has yielded a comparatively higher 11.68% annualized return.

RWM

1D
-0.81%
1M
-4.52%
YTD
-17.02%
6M
-14.47%
1Y
-28.68%
3Y*
-13.46%
5Y*
-5.74%
10Y*
-12.42%

IWM

1D
0.88%
1M
4.83%
YTD
21.64%
6M
18.08%
1Y
44.01%
3Y*
19.60%
5Y*
6.77%
10Y*
11.68%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

RWM vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
RWM
ProShares Short Russell2000		-17.02%-9.40%-5.91%-10.43%18.34%-17.90%-31.04%-19.83%11.57%-13.61%
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		21.64%12.66%11.38%16.83%-20.48%14.54%20.03%25.39%-11.12%14.58%

Correlation

The correlation between RWM and IWM is -1.00, 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

-1.00

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

-1.00

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-1.00

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

-1.00

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 25, 2007

-0.99

The correlation between RWM and IWM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from -1.00 to -0.99 - a consistent structural relationship.

RWM vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
RWM
IWM

Financial Services

96.0%
15.5%

Basic Materials

-

4.5%

Communication Services

-

1.7%

Consumer Cyclical

-

8.0%

Consumer Defensive

-

2.0%

Energy

-

6.0%

Healthcare

-

15.6%

Industrials

-

17.3%

Real Estate

-

5.5%

Technology

-

20.1%

Utilities

-

3.1%

Financial Services

RWM
96.0%
IWM
15.5%

Basic Materials

RWM

-

IWM
4.5%

Communication Services

RWM

-

IWM
1.7%

Consumer Cyclical

RWM

-

IWM
8.0%

Consumer Defensive

RWM

-

IWM
2.0%

Energy

RWM

-

IWM
6.0%

Healthcare

RWM

-

IWM
15.6%

Industrials

RWM

-

IWM
17.3%

Real Estate

RWM

-

IWM
5.5%

Technology

RWM

-

IWM
20.1%

Utilities

RWM

-

IWM
3.1%

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

iShares Russell 2000 ETF

Often compared with RWM:
RWM vs. QIDRWM vs. TWMRWM vs. PSQRWM vs. SPYRWM vs. QQQRWM vs. SHRWM vs. EMTY
Often compared with IWM:
IWM vs. SPYIWM vs. VTWOIWM vs. IJRIWM vs. AVUVIWM vs. IWNIWM vs. VOOIWM vs. TNA

Return for Risk

RWM vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments 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: 00
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
IWM
IWM Risk / Return Rank: 7272
Overall Rank
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7272
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 7070
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 6363
Omega Ratio Rank
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 8080
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 7676
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

RWM vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM). 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.

RWMIWMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
-1.47
2.24

-3.71

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
-2.14
3.05

-5.19

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

0.77

1.36

-0.59

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

-1.03

4.01

-5.04

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

-1.83

14.19

-16.02

RWM vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RWM Sharpe Ratio is -1.47, which is lower than the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RWM and IWM, 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. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RWM drawdown since its inception was -95.58%, which is greater than IWM's maximum drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RWM and IWM.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

RWMIWMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-95.58%

-59.05%

-36.53%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-27.83%

-11.03%

-16.80%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-42.69%

-27.50%

-15.19%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-42.69%

-31.91%

-10.78%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-74.31%

-41.13%

-33.18%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-95.58%

0.00%

-95.58%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-74.08%

-10.75%

-63.33%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

16.55%

3.11%

+13.44%

Volatility

RWM vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) have volatilities of 6.44% and 6.47%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

RWMIWMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.44%

6.47%

-0.03%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.25%

14.28%

-0.03%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

19.62%

19.75%

-0.13%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.63%

22.60%

+0.03%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

23.17%

23.09%

+0.08%

RWM vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

RWM has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

RWM vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

RWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.28%, more than IWM's 0.89% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		0.89%1.04%1.15%1.35%1.48%0.94%1.04%1.26%1.40%1.26%1.38%1.54%
RWM
ProShares Short Russell2000		4.28%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 IWM have a correlation of -1.00, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IWM has higher volatility (6.47%) compared to RWM (6.44%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RWM dropped -95.58% vs IWM's -59.05%.

On 10-year performance, IWM leads with 11.68% vs -12.42% for RWM. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, IWM has performed better with a 11.68% return vs -12.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IWM is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for RWM.

RWM has the higher dividend yield at 4.28%, compared with 0.89% for IWM.

RWM is categorized as Inverse Equities, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. RWM tracks Russell 2000 (-100%), while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for RWM and 0.19% for IWM.

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.24 vs -1.47), 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 IWM

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