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

Performance

RWM vs. VTWO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) and Vanguard Russell 2000 ETF (VTWO). 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 -15.12% return, which is significantly lower than VTWO's 18.87% return. Over the past 10 years, RWM has underperformed VTWO with an annualized return of -11.89%, while VTWO has yielded a comparatively higher 11.12% annualized return.


RWM

1D
-1.49%
1M
-3.01%
YTD
-15.12%
6M
-13.22%
1Y
-27.26%
3Y*
-12.96%
5Y*
-5.49%
10Y*
-11.89%

VTWO

1D
1.53%
1M
3.33%
YTD
18.87%
6M
16.64%
1Y
41.90%
3Y*
19.24%
5Y*
6.60%
10Y*
11.12%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

RWM vs. VTWO - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
RWM
ProShares Short Russell2000
-15.12%-9.40%-5.91%-10.43%18.34%-17.90%-31.04%-19.83%11.57%-13.61%
VTWO
Vanguard Russell 2000 ETF
18.87%12.90%11.55%17.08%-20.49%14.79%20.22%25.81%-11.15%14.69%

Correlation

The correlation between RWM and VTWO is -1.00, 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

-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 Sep 23, 2010

-0.99

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

RWM vs. VTWO - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
RWM
VTWO

Financial Services

80.6%
15.7%

Basic Materials

-

4.8%

Communication Services

-

2.4%

Consumer Cyclical

-

8.4%

Consumer Defensive

-

2.4%

Energy

-

6.1%

Healthcare

-

16.5%

Industrials

-

17.7%

Real Estate

-

6.1%

Technology

-

17.0%

Utilities

-

2.9%

Financial Services

RWM
80.6%
VTWO
15.7%

Basic Materials

RWM

-

VTWO
4.8%

Communication Services

RWM

-

VTWO
2.4%

Consumer Cyclical

RWM

-

VTWO
8.4%

Consumer Defensive

RWM

-

VTWO
2.4%

Energy

RWM

-

VTWO
6.1%

Healthcare

RWM

-

VTWO
16.5%

Industrials

RWM

-

VTWO
17.7%

Real Estate

RWM

-

VTWO
6.1%

Technology

RWM

-

VTWO
17.0%

Utilities

RWM

-

VTWO
2.9%

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. VTWO — 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

VTWO
VTWO Risk / Return Rank: 6969
Overall Rank
VTWO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6868
Sharpe Ratio Rank
VTWO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6767
Sortino Ratio Rank
VTWO Omega Ratio Rank: 6060
Omega Ratio Rank
VTWO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7777
Calmar Ratio Rank
VTWO Martin Ratio Rank: 7474
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. VTWO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) and Vanguard Russell 2000 ETF (VTWO). 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.


RWMVTWODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-3.64

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-5.09

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

0.78

1.36

-0.58

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

-1.00

3.83

-4.83

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

-1.73

13.62

-15.34

RWM vs. VTWO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RWM Sharpe Ratio is -1.44, which is lower than the VTWO Sharpe Ratio of 2.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RWM and VTWO, 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


RWMVTWODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-1.44

2.20

-3.64

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.24

0.29

-0.54

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

-0.52

0.48

-1.00

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

-0.49

0.53

-1.02

Drawdowns

RWM vs. VTWO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RWM drawdown since its inception was -95.47%, which is greater than VTWO's maximum drawdown of -41.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RWM and VTWO.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


RWMVTWODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-95.47%

-41.19%

-54.28%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-27.26%

-10.99%

-16.27%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-41.38%

-27.57%

-13.81%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-41.38%

-31.88%

-9.50%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-73.72%

-41.19%

-32.53%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-95.47%

0.00%

-95.47%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-74.05%

-8.39%

-65.66%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

15.83%

3.08%

+12.75%

Volatility

RWM vs. VTWO - Volatility Comparison

ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) and Vanguard Russell 2000 ETF (VTWO) have volatilities of 5.76% and 5.69%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


RWMVTWODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.76%

5.69%

+0.07%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.59%

13.57%

+0.02%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

19.06%

19.12%

-0.06%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.57%

22.49%

+0.08%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

23.11%

23.08%

+0.03%

RWM vs. VTWO - Expense Ratio Comparison

RWM has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than VTWO's 0.06% expense ratio.


Dividends

RWM vs. VTWO - Dividend Comparison

RWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.18%, more than VTWO's 1.07% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
VTWO
Vanguard Russell 2000 ETF
1.07%1.25%1.21%1.45%1.48%1.13%0.92%1.36%1.41%1.18%1.27%1.23%

Frequently Asked Questions


RWM and VTWO have a correlation of -1.00, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

RWM has higher volatility (5.76%) compared to VTWO (5.69%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RWM dropped -95.47% vs VTWO's -41.19%.

On 10-year performance, VTWO leads with 11.12% vs -11.89% for RWM. On fees, VTWO is cheaper at 0.06% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, VTWO has performed better with a 11.12% return vs -11.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

VTWO is cheaper with a 0.06% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for RWM.

RWM has the higher dividend yield at 4.18%, compared with 1.07% for VTWO.

RWM is categorized as Inverse Equities, while VTWO is Small Cap Blend Equities. RWM tracks Russell 2000 (-100%), while VTWO tracks Russell 2000 Index. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Vanguard. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for RWM and 0.06% for VTWO.

VTWO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.20 vs -1.44), 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 VTWO

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