RWM vs. MSTZ

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

RWM (ProShares Short Russell2000) and MSTZ (T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF) are both Inverse Equities funds. RWM is passively managed, while MSTZ is actively managed. Over the past year, RWM returned -27.19% vs 138.79% for MSTZ. At a 0.47 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RWM charges 0.95%/yr vs 1.05%/yr for MSTZ.

Performance

RWM vs. MSTZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) and T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF (MSTZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RWM achieves a -16.29% return, which is significantly higher than MSTZ's -28.57% return.

RWM

• 1D: 0.89%
• 1M: -3.67%
• YTD: -16.29%
• 6M: -14.25%
• 1Y: -27.19%
• 3Y*: -13.21%
• 5Y*: -5.30%
• 10Y*: -12.35%

MSTZ

• 1D: 10.06%
• 1M: 102.15%
• YTD: -28.57%
• 6M: -23.10%
• 1Y: 138.79%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RWM vs. MSTZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
RWM ProShares Short Russell2000	-16.29%	-9.40%	-0.23%
MSTZ T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF	-28.57%	-38.95%	-94.43%

Correlation

The correlation between RWM and MSTZ is 0.50, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.50
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 18, 2024	0.47

Return for Risk

RWM vs. MSTZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

RWM

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

MSTZ

MSTZ Risk / Return Rank: 34
MSTZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
MSTZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 41
MSTZ Omega Ratio Rank: 40
MSTZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
MSTZ Martin Ratio Rank: 26

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. MSTZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) and T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF (MSTZ). 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	MSTZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-1.39	0.97	-2.36
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-2.01	1.98	-3.99
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.78	1.25	-0.47
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.98	1.64	-2.63
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.74	3.27	-5.01

RWM vs. MSTZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RWM Sharpe Ratio is -1.39, which is lower than the MSTZ Sharpe Ratio of 0.97. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RWM and MSTZ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

RWM vs. MSTZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RWM drawdown since its inception was -95.58%, roughly equal to the maximum MSTZ drawdown of -99.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RWM and MSTZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	RWM	MSTZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-95.58%	-99.38%	+3.80%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-27.70%	-84.89%	+57.19%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-42.69%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-42.69%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-74.31%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-95.54%	-97.57%	+2.03%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-74.08%	-94.45%	+20.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	15.76%	42.87%	-27.11%

Volatility

RWM vs. MSTZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) is 6.51%, while T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF (MSTZ) has a volatility of 42.31%. This indicates that RWM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MSTZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RWM	MSTZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.51%	42.31%	-35.80%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.28%	127.64%	-113.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.61%	143.71%	-124.10%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.64%	169.81%	-147.17%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.14%	169.81%	-146.67%

RWM vs. MSTZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

RWM has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is lower than MSTZ's 1.05% expense ratio.

Dividends

RWM vs. MSTZ - Dividend Comparison

RWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.24%, while MSTZ has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
MSTZ T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RWM ProShares Short Russell2000	4.24%	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 MSTZ in my portfolio?

RWM and MSTZ have a correlation of 0.50, 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 MSTZ?

MSTZ has higher volatility (42.31%) compared to RWM (6.51%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RWM dropped -95.58% vs MSTZ's -99.38%.

Which ETF is better, RWM or MSTZ?

On 1-year performance, MSTZ leads with 138.79% vs -27.19% for RWM. On fees, RWM is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, RWM has been the lower-risk option at 6.51%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RWM or MSTZ?

Over the 1-year period, MSTZ has performed better with a 138.79% return vs -27.19%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RWM or MSTZ?

RWM is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.05% for MSTZ.

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

RWM has the higher dividend yield at 4.24%, compared with 0.00% for MSTZ.

What is the main difference between RWM and MSTZ?

They also come from different issuers: ProShares and REX. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for RWM and 1.05% for MSTZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MSTZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.97 vs -1.39), 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.