RWM vs. NOBL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RWM (ProShares Short Russell2000) and NOBL (ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RWM is a Inverse Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 (-100%), while NOBL is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RWM returned -11.85%/yr vs 9.51%/yr for NOBL. At a correlation of -0.75, they often move in opposite directions. RWM charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for NOBL.

Performance

RWM vs. NOBL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) and ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF (NOBL). 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 NOBL's 3.51% return. Over the past 10 years, RWM has underperformed NOBL with an annualized return of -11.85%, while NOBL has yielded a comparatively higher 9.51% 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%

NOBL

• 1D: -0.17%
• 1M: 1.01%
• YTD: 3.51%
• 6M: 3.45%
• 1Y: 9.00%
• 3Y*: 8.01%
• 5Y*: 5.03%
• 10Y*: 9.51%

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

RWM vs. NOBL - 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%
NOBL ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF	3.51%	6.84%	6.72%	8.09%	-6.52%	25.46%	8.35%	27.39%	-3.26%	21.02%

Correlation

The correlation between RWM and NOBL is -0.59, 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	-0.59
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.67
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.72
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	-0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 11, 2013	-0.75

The correlation between RWM and NOBL shifts across timeframes, from -0.75 (all time) to -0.59 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RWM vs. NOBL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RWM	NOBL
Financial Services	80.6%	12.4%
Basic Materials	-	10.9%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	5.1%
Consumer Defensive	-	23.5%
Energy	-	3.4%
Healthcare	-	9.7%
Industrials	-	20.3%
Real Estate	-	4.6%
Technology	-	3.6%
Utilities	-	6.4%

Return for Risk

RWM vs. NOBL — 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

NOBL

NOBL Risk / Return Rank: 22
NOBL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
NOBL Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
NOBL Omega Ratio Rank: 20
NOBL Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
NOBL Martin Ratio Rank: 21

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. NOBL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) and ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF (NOBL). 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	NOBL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-1.37	0.80	-2.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.95	1.24	-3.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.79	1.14	-0.35
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.95	0.99	-1.95
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.65	2.58	-4.23
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. NOBL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RWM Sharpe Ratio is -1.37, which is lower than the NOBL Sharpe Ratio of 0.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RWM and NOBL, 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	NOBL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-1.37	0.80	-2.17
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.23	0.35	-0.58
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	-0.51	0.57	-1.09
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.49	0.64	-1.13

Drawdowns

RWM vs. NOBL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RWM drawdown since its inception was -95.47%, which is greater than NOBL's maximum drawdown of -35.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RWM and NOBL.

Drawdown Indicators

	RWM	NOBL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-95.47%	-35.43%	-60.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-27.26%	-9.11%	-18.15%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-41.38%	-15.36%	-26.02%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-41.38%	-17.92%	-23.46%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-73.72%	-35.43%	-38.29%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-95.41%	-5.99%	-89.42%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-74.04%	-3.48%	-70.56%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	15.73%	3.50%	+12.23%

Volatility

RWM vs. NOBL - Volatility Comparison

ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) has a higher volatility of 5.84% compared to ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF (NOBL) at 2.36%. This indicates that RWM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than NOBL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RWM	NOBL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.84%	2.36%	+3.48%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.52%	8.00%	+5.52%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.07%	11.33%	+7.74%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.56%	14.38%	+8.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.11%	16.60%	+6.51%

RWM vs. NOBL - Expense Ratio Comparison

RWM has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than NOBL's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

RWM vs. NOBL - Dividend Comparison

RWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.12%, more than NOBL's 2.12% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
NOBL ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF	2.12%	2.14%	2.05%	2.09%	1.94%	1.89%	2.14%	1.89%	2.37%	1.74%	2.13%	2.02%
RWM ProShares Short Russell2000	4.12%	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

Can I hold both RWM and NOBL in my portfolio?

RWM and NOBL have a correlation of -0.59, 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 NOBL?

RWM has higher volatility (5.84%) compared to NOBL (2.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RWM dropped -95.47% vs NOBL's -35.43%.

Which ETF is better, RWM or NOBL?

On 10-year performance, NOBL leads with 9.51% vs -11.85% for RWM. On fees, NOBL is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, NOBL has been the lower-risk option at 2.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RWM or NOBL?

Over the 10-year period, NOBL has performed better with a 9.51% return vs -11.85%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RWM or NOBL?

NOBL is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for RWM.

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

RWM has the higher dividend yield at 4.12%, compared with 2.12% for NOBL.

What is the main difference between RWM and NOBL?

RWM is categorized as Inverse Equities, while NOBL is S&P 500. RWM tracks Russell 2000 (-100%), while NOBL tracks S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats Index. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for RWM and 0.35% for NOBL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NOBL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.80 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.