SH vs. RWM

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

SH (ProShares Short S&P500) and RWM (ProShares Short Russell2000) are both Inverse Equities funds from ProShares - SH tracks the S&P 500 Index (-100% daily) while RWM tracks the Russell 2000 (-100%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, SH returned -12.51%/yr vs -11.63%/yr for RWM. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. SH charges 0.89%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for RWM.

Performance

SH vs. RWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Short S&P500 (SH) and ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SH achieves a -7.18% return, which is significantly higher than RWM's -15.54% return. Over the past 10 years, SH has underperformed RWM with an annualized return of -12.51%, while RWM has yielded a comparatively higher -11.63% annualized return.

SH

• 1D: 0.73%
• 1M: -0.85%
• 6M: -5.53%
• YTD: -7.18%
• 1Y: -13.05%
• 3Y*: -11.50%
• 5Y*: -8.24%
• 10Y*: -12.51%

RWM

• 1D: 0.81%
• 1M: -0.07%
• 6M: -10.40%
• YTD: -15.54%
• 1Y: -23.21%
• 3Y*: -11.29%
• 5Y*: -6.18%
• 10Y*: -11.63%

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

SH vs. RWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
SH ProShares Short S&P500	-7.18%	-11.35%	-13.52%	-14.80%	18.98%	-24.21%	-25.09%	-22.12%	4.93%	-17.36%
RWM ProShares Short Russell2000	-15.54%	-9.40%	-5.91%	-10.43%	18.34%	-17.90%	-31.04%	-19.83%	11.57%	-13.61%

Correlation

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

SH vs. RWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	SH	RWM
Financial Services	98.8%	105.6%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

SH vs. RWM — Risk / Return Rank

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

SH

SH Risk / Return Rank: 2
SH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1
SH Sortino Ratio Rank: 2
SH Omega Ratio Rank: 2
SH Calmar Ratio Rank: 2
SH Martin Ratio Rank: 1

RWM

RWM Risk / Return Rank: 1
RWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 0
RWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 1
RWM Omega Ratio Rank: 1
RWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 2
RWM 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.

SH vs. RWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Short S&P500 (SH) and ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM). 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.

	SH	RWM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-1.05	-1.20	+0.15
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.48	-1.68	+0.20
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.84	0.82	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.82	-0.84	+0.03
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.55	-1.45	-0.11

SH vs. RWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SH Sharpe Ratio is -1.05, which is comparable to the RWM Sharpe Ratio of -1.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SH and RWM, 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

SH vs. RWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SH drawdown since its inception was -94.66%, roughly equal to the maximum RWM drawdown of -95.61%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SH and RWM.

Drawdown Indicators

	SH	RWM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-94.66%	-95.61%	+0.95%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.06%	-27.57%	+11.51%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-38.82%	-43.12%	+4.30%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-44.53%	-43.12%	-1.41%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-74.80%	-72.51%	-2.29%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-94.57%	-95.50%	+0.93%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-67.85%	-74.14%	+6.29%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.41%	16.08%	-7.67%

Volatility

SH vs. RWM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ProShares Short S&P500 (SH) is 4.09%, while ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) has a volatility of 4.79%. This indicates that SH experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RWM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SH	RWM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.09%	4.79%	-0.70%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.95%	14.16%	-4.21%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.51%	19.43%	-6.92%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.96%	22.59%	-5.63%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.00%	23.08%	-5.08%

SH vs. RWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

SH vs. RWM - Dividend Comparison

SH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.21%, more than RWM's 3.78% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
RWM ProShares Short Russell2000	3.78%	3.97%	6.03%	4.78%	0.39%	0.00%	0.20%	1.55%	0.87%	0.07%
SH ProShares Short S&P500	4.21%	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 SH and RWM in my portfolio?

SH and RWM 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, SH or RWM?

RWM has higher volatility (4.79%) compared to SH (4.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SH dropped -94.66% vs RWM's -95.61%.

Which ETF is better, SH or RWM?

On 10-year performance, RWM leads with -11.63% vs -12.51% for SH. On fees, SH is cheaper at 0.89% per year. On volatility, SH has been the lower-risk option at 4.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SH or RWM?

Over the 10-year period, RWM has performed better with a -11.63% return vs -12.51%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SH or RWM?

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

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

SH has the higher dividend yield at 4.21%, compared with 3.78% for RWM.

What is the main difference between SH and RWM?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-1.05 vs -1.20), 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.