RWM vs. LABU

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RWM (ProShares Short Russell2000) and LABU (Direxion Daily S&P Biotech Bull 3x Shares) are both exchange-traded funds - RWM is a Inverse Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 (-100%), while LABU is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the S&P Biotechnology Select Industry Index (300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RWM returned -11.85%/yr vs -13.53%/yr for LABU. At a correlation of -0.70, they often move in opposite directions. RWM charges 0.95%/yr vs 1.12%/yr for LABU.

Performance

RWM vs. LABU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) and Direxion Daily S&P Biotech Bull 3x Shares (LABU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RWM achieves a -13.83% return, which is significantly lower than LABU's 3.80% return. Over the past 10 years, RWM has outperformed LABU with an annualized return of -11.85%, while LABU has yielded a comparatively lower -13.53% annualized return.

RWM

• 1D: 1.37%
• 1M: -3.30%
• YTD: -13.83%
• 6M: -12.66%
• 1Y: -25.94%
• 3Y*: -12.10%
• 5Y*: -5.21%
• 10Y*: -11.85%

LABU

• 1D: 4.61%
• 1M: -11.09%
• YTD: 3.80%
• 6M: 3.63%
• 1Y: 195.85%
• 3Y*: 7.82%
• 5Y*: -32.76%
• 10Y*: -13.53%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

RWM vs. LABU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
RWM ProShares Short Russell2000	-13.83%	-9.40%	-5.91%	-10.43%	18.34%	-17.90%	-31.04%	-19.83%	11.57%	-13.61%
LABU Direxion Daily S&P Biotech Bull 3x Shares	3.80%	79.17%	-26.02%	-13.41%	-80.36%	-64.15%	74.66%	75.50%	-57.61%	149.12%

Correlation

The correlation between RWM and LABU is -0.62, 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	-0.62
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.70
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.72
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	-0.69
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 29, 2015	-0.70

The correlation between RWM and LABU has been stable across timeframes, ranging from -0.72 to -0.62 - a consistent structural relationship.

RWM vs. LABU - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RWM	LABU
Financial Services	80.6%	0.2%
Basic Materials	-	0.0%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	99.8%
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

RWM vs. LABU — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

RWM

RWM Risk / Return Rank: 1
RWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 0
RWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 1
RWM Omega Ratio Rank: 1
RWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 1
RWM Martin Ratio Rank: 1

LABU

LABU Risk / Return Rank: 75
LABU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
LABU Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
LABU Omega Ratio Rank: 55
LABU Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
LABU Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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. LABU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) and Direxion Daily S&P Biotech Bull 3x Shares (LABU). 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	LABU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-1.37	2.60	-3.97
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.95	2.93	-4.88
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.79	1.35	-0.56
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.95	6.42	-7.38
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.65	18.77	-20.42
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RWM vs. LABU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RWM Sharpe Ratio is -1.37, which is lower than the LABU Sharpe Ratio of 2.60. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RWM and LABU, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	RWM	LABU	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-1.37	2.60	-3.97
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.23	-0.34	+0.11
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	-0.51	-0.14	-0.37
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.49	-0.24	-0.25

Drawdowns

RWM vs. LABU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RWM drawdown since its inception was -95.47%, roughly equal to the maximum LABU drawdown of -99.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RWM and LABU.

Drawdown Indicators

	RWM	LABU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-95.47%	-99.18%	+3.71%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-27.26%	-30.70%	+3.44%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-41.38%	-78.30%	+36.92%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-41.38%	-97.59%	+56.21%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-73.72%	-98.96%	+25.24%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-95.41%	-96.34%	+0.93%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-74.04%	-81.68%	+7.64%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	15.73%	10.48%	+5.25%

Volatility

RWM vs. LABU - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) is 5.84%, while Direxion Daily S&P Biotech Bull 3x Shares (LABU) has a volatility of 27.83%. This indicates that RWM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LABU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RWM	LABU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.84%	27.83%	-21.99%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.52%	59.70%	-46.18%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.07%	75.91%	-56.84%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.56%	95.58%	-73.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.11%	95.42%	-72.31%

RWM vs. LABU - Expense Ratio Comparison

RWM has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is lower than LABU's 1.12% expense ratio.

Dividends

RWM vs. LABU - Dividend Comparison

RWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.12%, more than LABU's 0.74% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
LABU Direxion Daily S&P Biotech Bull 3x Shares	0.74%	0.84%	0.35%	0.35%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.28%	0.64%	0.17%
RWM ProShares Short Russell2000	4.12%	3.97%	6.03%	4.78%	0.39%	0.00%	0.20%	1.55%	0.87%	0.07%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RWM and LABU in my portfolio?

RWM and LABU have a correlation of -0.62, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RWM or LABU?

LABU has higher volatility (27.83%) compared to RWM (5.84%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RWM dropped -95.47% vs LABU's -99.18%.

Which ETF is better, RWM or LABU?

On 10-year performance, RWM leads with -11.85% vs -13.53% for LABU. On fees, RWM is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, RWM has been the lower-risk option at 5.84%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RWM or LABU?

Over the 10-year period, RWM has performed better with a -11.85% return vs -13.53%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RWM or LABU?

RWM is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.12% for LABU.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RWM or LABU?

RWM has the higher dividend yield at 4.12%, compared with 0.74% for LABU.

What is the main difference between RWM and LABU?

RWM is categorized as Inverse Equities, while LABU is Leveraged Equities. RWM tracks Russell 2000 (-100%), while LABU tracks S&P Biotechnology Select Industry Index (300%). They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Direxion. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for RWM and 1.12% for LABU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LABU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.60 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.