SCO vs. GLDW
SCO (ProShares UltraShort Bloomberg Crude Oil) and GLDW (Roundhill Gold WeeklyPay ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - SCO is a Leveraged Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity Balanced WTI Crude Oil Index (-200%), while GLDW is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by State Street. SCO is passively managed, while GLDW is actively managed. At a 0.07 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. SCO charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.99%/yr for GLDW.
Performance
SCO vs. GLDW - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, SCO achieves a -67.25% return, which is significantly lower than GLDW's 1.94% return.
SCO
- 1D
- 4.05%
- 1M
- 1.14%
- YTD
- -67.25%
- 6M
- -65.49%
- 1Y
- -67.35%
- 3Y*
- -37.24%
- 5Y*
- -42.35%
- 10Y*
- -38.21%
GLDW
- 1D
- 0.94%
- 1M
- -2.46%
- YTD
- 1.94%
- 6M
- 4.52%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
SCO vs. GLDW - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
SCO ProShares UltraShort Bloomberg Crude Oil | -67.25% | 7.33% |
GLDW Roundhill Gold WeeklyPay ETF | 1.94% | 7.63% |
Correlation
The correlation between SCO and GLDW is 0.07, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 31, 2025 | 0.07 |
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
SCO vs. GLDW — Risk / Return Rank
SCO
GLDW
SCO vs. GLDW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares UltraShort Bloomberg Crude Oil (SCO) and Roundhill Gold WeeklyPay ETF (GLDW). 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.
| SCO | GLDW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.76 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.93 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.94 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| SCO | GLDW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -1.19 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.71 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | -0.53 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.38 | 0.47 | -0.84 |
Drawdowns
SCO vs. GLDW - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum SCO drawdown since its inception was -99.80%, which is greater than GLDW's maximum drawdown of -23.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SCO and GLDW.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| SCO | GLDW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -99.80% | -23.59% | -76.21% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -72.24% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -79.85% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -94.80% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -99.51% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -99.78% | -21.78% | -78.00% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -85.18% | -9.02% | -76.16% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 34.87% | — | — |
Volatility
SCO vs. GLDW - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| SCO | GLDW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 20.24% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 45.73% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 56.81% | 36.79% | +20.02% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 59.76% | 36.79% | +22.97% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 71.95% | 36.79% | +35.16% |
SCO vs. GLDW - Expense Ratio Comparison
SCO has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is lower than GLDW's 0.99% expense ratio.
Dividends
SCO vs. GLDW - Dividend Comparison
SCO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while GLDW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 19.30%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
GLDW Roundhill Gold WeeklyPay ETF | 19.30% | 3.75% |
SCO ProShares UltraShort Bloomberg Crude Oil | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
SCO and GLDW have a correlation of 0.07, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, SCO is cheaper at 0.95% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
SCO is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for GLDW.
GLDW has the higher dividend yield at 19.30%, compared with 0.00% for SCO.
SCO is categorized as Leveraged Commodities, while GLDW is Derivative Income. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for SCO and 0.99% for GLDW.
Find the right allocation for SCO and GLDW
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