RWM vs. SH

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

RWM (ProShares Short Russell2000) and SH (ProShares Short S&P500) are both Inverse Equities funds from ProShares - RWM tracks the Russell 2000 (-100%) while SH tracks the S&P 500 Index (-100% daily). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RWM returned -12.35%/yr vs -12.90%/yr for SH. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RWM charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for SH.

Performance

RWM vs. SH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) and ProShares Short S&P500 (SH). 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 lower than SH's -5.55% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with RWM having a -12.35% annualized return and SH not far behind at -12.90%.

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%

SH

• 1D: 1.41%
• 1M: 1.68%
• YTD: -5.55%
• 6M: -4.58%
• 1Y: -14.55%
• 3Y*: -11.90%
• 5Y*: -8.40%
• 10Y*: -12.90%

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

RWM vs. SH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
RWM ProShares Short Russell2000	-16.29%	-9.40%	-5.91%	-10.43%	18.34%	-17.90%	-31.04%	-19.83%	11.57%	-13.61%
SH ProShares Short S&P500	-5.55%	-11.35%	-13.52%	-14.80%	18.98%	-24.21%	-25.09%	-22.12%	4.93%	-17.36%

Correlation

The correlation between RWM and SH is 0.79, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.79
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.78
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.82
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 25, 2007	0.85

The correlation between RWM and SH has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

RWM vs. SH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RWM	SH
Financial Services	96.0%	83.0%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

RWM vs. SH — 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

SH

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

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. SH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) and ProShares Short S&P500 (SH). 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	SH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-1.39	-1.17	-0.22
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-2.01	-1.68	-0.32
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.78	0.82	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.98	-0.89	-0.10
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.74	-1.67	-0.07

RWM vs. SH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RWM Sharpe Ratio is -1.39, which is comparable to the SH Sharpe Ratio of -1.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RWM and SH, 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. SH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RWM drawdown since its inception was -95.58%, roughly equal to the maximum SH drawdown of -94.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RWM and SH.

Drawdown Indicators

	RWM	SH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-95.58%	-94.66%	-0.92%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-27.70%	-16.42%	-11.28%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-42.69%	-38.82%	-3.87%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-42.69%	-44.53%	+1.84%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-74.31%	-76.12%	+1.81%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-95.54%	-94.48%	-1.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-74.08%	-67.78%	-6.30%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	15.76%	9.62%	+6.14%

Volatility

RWM vs. SH - Volatility Comparison

ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) has a higher volatility of 6.51% compared to ProShares Short S&P500 (SH) at 4.80%. This indicates that RWM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than SH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RWM	SH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.51%	4.80%	+1.71%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.28%	9.83%	+4.45%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.61%	12.46%	+7.15%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.64%	16.95%	+5.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.14%	18.03%	+5.11%

RWM vs. SH - Expense Ratio Comparison

RWM has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than SH's 0.89% expense ratio.

Dividends

RWM vs. SH - Dividend Comparison

RWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.24%, less than SH's 4.39% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
RWM ProShares Short Russell2000	4.24%	3.97%	6.03%	4.78%	0.39%	0.00%	0.20%	1.55%	0.87%	0.07%
SH ProShares Short S&P500	4.39%	4.49%	6.20%	5.37%	1.08%	0.00%	0.16%	1.76%	1.01%	0.06%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RWM and SH in my portfolio?

RWM and SH have a correlation of 0.79, 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 SH?

RWM has higher volatility (6.51%) compared to SH (4.80%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RWM dropped -95.58% vs SH's -94.66%.

Which ETF is better, RWM or SH?

On 10-year performance, RWM leads with -12.35% vs -12.90% for SH. On fees, SH is cheaper at 0.89% per year. On volatility, SH has been the lower-risk option at 4.80%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RWM or SH?

Over the 10-year period, RWM has performed better with a -12.35% return vs -12.90%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RWM or SH?

SH is cheaper with a 0.89% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for RWM.

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

SH has the higher dividend yield at 4.39%, compared with 4.24% for RWM.

What is the main difference between RWM and SH?

RWM tracks Russell 2000 (-100%), while SH tracks S&P 500 Index (-100% daily). Their fees differ too: 0.95% for RWM and 0.89% for SH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-1.17 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.