SAA vs. INTW

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

SAA (ProShares Ultra SmallCap600) and INTW (GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. SAA is passively managed, while INTW is actively managed. Over the past year, SAA returned 66.49% vs 1964.55% for INTW. At a 0.45 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. SAA charges 0.95%/yr vs 1.50%/yr for INTW.

Performance

SAA vs. INTW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Ultra SmallCap600 (SAA) and GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SAA achieves a 36.86% return, which is significantly lower than INTW's 750.22% return.

SAA

• 1D: -0.55%
• 1M: 8.20%
• YTD: 36.86%
• 6M: 31.50%
• 1Y: 66.49%
• 3Y*: 21.67%
• 5Y*: 2.49%
• 10Y*: 12.61%

INTW

• 1D: -12.49%
• 1M: 12.21%
• YTD: 750.22%
• 6M: 775.58%
• 1Y: 1,964.55%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

SAA vs. INTW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
SAA ProShares Ultra SmallCap600	36.86%	0.44%
INTW GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF	750.22%	60.89%

Correlation

The correlation between SAA and INTW is 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.40
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 13, 2025	0.45

SAA vs. INTW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	SAA	INTW
Technology	17.1%	66.7%
Financial Services	16.5%	-
Industrials	15.2%	-
Consumer Cyclical	13.1%	-
Healthcare	11.0%	-
Real Estate	7.6%	-
Energy	5.4%	-
Basic Materials	5.0%	-
Communication Services	3.7%	-
Consumer Defensive	3.6%	-
Utilities	1.9%	-

Return for Risk

SAA vs. INTW — Risk / Return Rank

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

SAA

SAA Risk / Return Rank: 63
SAA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
SAA Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
SAA Omega Ratio Rank: 51
SAA Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
SAA Martin Ratio Rank: 69

INTW

INTW Risk / Return Rank: 98
INTW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
INTW Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
INTW Omega Ratio Rank: 94
INTW Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
INTW Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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.

SAA vs. INTW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra SmallCap600 (SAA) and GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW). 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.

	SAA	INTW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.85	13.25	-11.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.55	5.13	-2.58
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.65	-0.35
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.67	40.32	-36.65
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.94	91.49	-79.55

SAA vs. INTW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SAA Sharpe Ratio is 1.85, which is lower than the INTW Sharpe Ratio of 13.25. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SAA and INTW, 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

SAA vs. INTW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SAA drawdown since its inception was -87.39%, which is greater than INTW's maximum drawdown of -60.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SAA and INTW.

Drawdown Indicators

	SAA	INTW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-87.39%	-60.58%	-26.81%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.21%	-49.34%	+31.13%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-50.84%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-55.37%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-74.54%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.69%	-12.49%	+11.80%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-27.35%	-29.66%	+2.31%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.59%	21.70%	-16.11%

Volatility

SAA vs. INTW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ProShares Ultra SmallCap600 (SAA) is 9.60%, while GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW) has a volatility of 55.81%. This indicates that SAA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than INTW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SAA	INTW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.60%	55.81%	-46.21%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.43%	119.10%	-94.67%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	36.09%	150.14%	-114.05%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	43.53%	148.88%	-105.35%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	46.15%	148.88%	-102.73%

SAA vs. INTW - Expense Ratio Comparison

SAA has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is lower than INTW's 1.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

SAA vs. INTW - Dividend Comparison

SAA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.74%, while INTW has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
INTW GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
SAA ProShares Ultra SmallCap600	0.74%	1.05%	1.36%	0.88%	0.46%	0.00%	0.03%	0.35%	0.27%	0.00%	0.14%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SAA and INTW in my portfolio?

SAA and INTW have a correlation of 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, SAA or INTW?

INTW has higher volatility (55.81%) compared to SAA (9.60%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SAA dropped -87.39% vs INTW's -60.58%.

Which ETF is better, SAA or INTW?

On 1-year performance, INTW leads with 1964.55% vs 66.49% for SAA. On fees, SAA is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, SAA has been the lower-risk option at 9.60%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SAA or INTW?

Over the 1-year period, INTW has performed better with a 1964.55% return vs 66.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SAA or INTW?

SAA is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for INTW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, SAA or INTW?

SAA has the higher dividend yield at 0.74%, compared with 0.00% for INTW.

What is the main difference between SAA and INTW?

They also come from different issuers: ProShares and GraniteShares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for SAA and 1.50% for INTW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

INTW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (13.25 vs 1.85), 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.