PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
RWM vs. TWM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

RWM vs. TWM - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RWM achieves a -15.00% return, which is significantly higher than TWM's -29.77% return. Over the past 10 years, RWM has outperformed TWM with an annualized return of -11.97%, while TWM has yielded a comparatively lower -27.86% 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%

TWM

1D
-1.84%
1M
-8.47%
YTD
-29.77%
6M
-30.61%
1Y
-51.67%
3Y*
-29.89%
5Y*
-17.74%
10Y*
-27.86%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

RWM vs. TWM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
RWM
ProShares Short Russell2000
-15.00%-9.40%-5.91%-10.43%18.34%-17.90%-31.04%-19.83%11.57%-13.61%
TWM
ProShares UltraShort Russell2000
-29.77%-24.71%-19.35%-26.84%28.43%-35.43%-60.01%-38.40%19.15%-26.36%

Correlation

The correlation between RWM and TWM is 1.00 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.00

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

1.00

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.00

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

1.00

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 26, 2007

0.99

The correlation between RWM and TWM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.99 to 1.00 - a consistent structural relationship.

RWM vs. TWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
RWM
TWM

Financial Services

80.6%
76.5%

Basic Materials

-

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Industrials

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Technology

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Financial Services

RWM
80.6%
TWM
76.5%

Basic Materials

RWM

-

TWM

-

Communication Services

RWM

-

TWM

-

Consumer Cyclical

RWM

-

TWM

-

Consumer Defensive

RWM

-

TWM

-

Energy

RWM

-

TWM

-

Healthcare

RWM

-

TWM

-

Industrials

RWM

-

TWM

-

Real Estate

RWM

-

TWM

-

Technology

RWM

-

TWM

-

Utilities

RWM

-

TWM

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

RWM vs. TWM — Risk / Return Rank

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

RWM
RWM Risk / Return Rank: 00
Overall Rank
RWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 00
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 11
Sortino Ratio Rank
RWM Omega Ratio Rank: 11
Omega Ratio Rank
RWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 00
Calmar Ratio Rank
RWM Martin Ratio Rank: 00
Martin Ratio Rank

TWM
TWM Risk / Return Rank: 00
Overall Rank
TWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 00
Sharpe Ratio Rank
TWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 00
Sortino Ratio Rank
TWM Omega Ratio Rank: 11
Omega Ratio Rank
TWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 00
Calmar Ratio Rank
TWM Martin Ratio Rank: 11
Martin Ratio Rank
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. TWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) and ProShares UltraShort Russell2000 (TWM). 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.


RWMTWMDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

-1.48

-1.36

-0.13

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

-2.14

-2.23

+0.08

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

0.77

0.76

+0.01

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

-1.00

-1.00

0.00

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

-1.70

-1.60

-0.10

RWM vs. TWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RWM Sharpe Ratio is -1.48, which is comparable to the TWM Sharpe Ratio of -1.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RWM and TWM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


RWMTWMDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-1.48

-1.36

-0.13

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.25

-0.40

+0.15

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

-0.52

-0.61

+0.09

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

-0.49

-0.57

+0.08

Drawdowns

RWM vs. TWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RWM drawdown since its inception was -95.47%, roughly equal to the maximum TWM drawdown of -99.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RWM and TWM.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


RWMTWMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-95.47%

-99.93%

+4.46%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-27.26%

-50.49%

+23.23%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-41.38%

-72.74%

+31.36%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-41.38%

-75.23%

+33.85%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-73.72%

-96.62%

+22.90%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-95.47%

-99.93%

+4.46%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-74.04%

-87.27%

+13.23%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

16.63%

32.35%

-15.72%

Volatility

RWM vs. TWM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) is 5.68%, while ProShares UltraShort Russell2000 (TWM) has a volatility of 11.21%. This indicates that RWM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than TWM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


RWMTWMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.68%

11.21%

-5.53%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.50%

27.20%

-13.70%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

19.01%

38.19%

-19.18%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.55%

45.08%

-22.53%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

23.11%

45.78%

-22.67%

RWM vs. TWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

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


Dividends

RWM vs. TWM - Dividend Comparison

RWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.18%, less than TWM's 6.45% yield.


PositionTTM202520242023202220212020201920182017
RWM
ProShares Short Russell2000
4.18%3.97%6.03%4.78%0.39%0.00%0.20%1.55%0.87%0.07%
TWM
ProShares UltraShort Russell2000
6.45%5.36%6.21%4.72%0.17%0.00%0.41%1.49%0.73%0.05%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 1.00, RWM and TWM move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

TWM has higher volatility (11.21%) compared to RWM (5.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RWM dropped -95.47% vs TWM's -99.93%.

On 10-year performance, RWM leads with -11.97% vs -27.86% for TWM. 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.

Over the 10-year period, RWM has performed better with a -11.97% return vs -27.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

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

TWM has the higher dividend yield at 6.45%, compared with 4.18% for RWM.

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

TWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-1.36 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for RWM and TWM

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer