RWM vs. QLD

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

RWM (ProShares Short Russell2000) and QLD (ProShares Ultra QQQ) are both exchange-traded funds - RWM is a Inverse Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 (-100%), while QLD is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index (200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RWM returned -11.97%/yr vs 36.17%/yr for QLD. At a correlation of -0.76, they often move in opposite directions. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

RWM vs. QLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) and ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RWM achieves a -15.00% return, which is significantly lower than QLD's 42.81% return. Over the past 10 years, RWM has underperformed QLD with an annualized return of -11.97%, while QLD has yielded a comparatively higher 36.17% annualized return.

RWM

• 1D: -0.86%
• 1M: -4.02%
• YTD: -15.00%
• 6M: -15.34%
• 1Y: -28.11%
• 3Y*: -12.50%
• 5Y*: -5.55%
• 10Y*: -11.97%

QLD

• 1D: 0.90%
• 1M: 21.71%
• YTD: 42.81%
• 6M: 38.79%
• 1Y: 89.44%
• 3Y*: 50.42%
• 5Y*: 26.76%
• 10Y*: 36.17%

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

RWM vs. QLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
RWM ProShares Short Russell2000	-15.00%	-9.40%	-5.91%	-10.43%	18.34%	-17.90%	-31.04%	-19.83%	11.57%	-13.61%
QLD ProShares Ultra QQQ	42.81%	30.36%	42.82%	117.72%	-60.52%	54.67%	88.90%	81.69%	-8.31%	70.34%

Correlation

The correlation between RWM and QLD is -0.69, 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	-0.69
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.65
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 Jan 26, 2007	-0.76

The correlation between RWM and QLD shifts across timeframes, from -0.76 (all time) to -0.65 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RWM vs. QLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RWM	QLD
Financial Services	80.6%	0.2%
Basic Materials	-	1.1%
Communication Services	-	15.8%
Consumer Cyclical	-	12.3%
Consumer Defensive	-	7.7%
Energy	-	0.6%
Healthcare	-	4.2%
Industrials	-	2.8%
Real Estate	-	0.1%
Technology	-	53.8%
Utilities	-	1.4%

Return for Risk

RWM vs. QLD — 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: 0
RWM Martin Ratio Rank: 0

QLD

QLD Risk / Return Rank: 73
QLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
QLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
QLD Omega Ratio Rank: 70
QLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
QLD Martin Ratio Rank: 69

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. QLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) and ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD). 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	QLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	-1.48	2.82	-4.31
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	-2.14	3.26	-5.40
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.77	1.43	-0.66
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	-1.00	3.67	-4.68
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	-1.70	12.83	-14.53
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. QLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RWM Sharpe Ratio is -1.48, which is lower than the QLD Sharpe Ratio of 2.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RWM and QLD, 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	QLD	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-1.48	2.82	-4.31
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.25	0.60	-0.85
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	-0.52	0.81	-1.33
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.49	0.60	-1.09

Drawdowns

RWM vs. QLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RWM drawdown since its inception was -95.47%, which is greater than QLD's maximum drawdown of -83.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RWM and QLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	RWM	QLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-95.47%	-83.13%	-12.34%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-27.26%	-25.13%	-2.13%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-41.38%	-42.29%	+0.91%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-41.38%	-63.68%	+22.30%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-73.72%	-63.68%	-10.04%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-95.47%	0.00%	-95.47%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-74.04%	-18.17%	-55.87%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	16.63%	7.20%	+9.43%

Volatility

RWM vs. QLD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) is 5.68%, while ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) has a volatility of 8.87%. This indicates that RWM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QLD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RWM	QLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.68%	8.87%	-3.19%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.50%	24.08%	-10.58%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.01%	31.86%	-12.85%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.55%	44.76%	-22.21%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.11%	44.57%	-21.46%

RWM vs. QLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both RWM and QLD have an expense ratio of 0.95%.

Dividends

RWM vs. QLD - Dividend Comparison

RWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.18%, more than QLD's 0.12% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
QLD ProShares Ultra QQQ	0.12%	0.17%	0.25%	0.33%	0.31%	0.00%	0.00%	0.13%	0.06%	0.02%	0.21%	0.11%
RWM ProShares Short Russell2000	4.18%	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 QLD in my portfolio?

RWM and QLD have a correlation of -0.69, 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 QLD?

QLD has higher volatility (8.87%) compared to RWM (5.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RWM dropped -95.47% vs QLD's -83.13%.

Which ETF is better, RWM or QLD?

On 10-year performance, QLD leads with 36.17% vs -11.97% for RWM. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, RWM has been the lower-risk option at 5.68%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RWM or QLD?

Over the 10-year period, QLD has performed better with a 36.17% return vs -11.97%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RWM or QLD?

RWM and QLD have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.

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

RWM has the higher dividend yield at 4.18%, compared with 0.12% for QLD.

What is the main difference between RWM and QLD?

RWM is categorized as Inverse Equities, while QLD is Leveraged Equities. RWM tracks Russell 2000 (-100%), while QLD tracks NASDAQ-100 Index (200%).

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.82 vs -1.48), 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.