TWM vs. AMDG
TWM (ProShares UltraShort Russell2000) and AMDG (Leverage Shares 2X Long AMD Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. TWM is passively managed, while AMDG is actively managed. Over the past year, TWM returned -48.58% vs 1172.87% for AMDG. At a correlation of -0.54, they often move in opposite directions. TWM charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for AMDG.
Performance
TWM vs. AMDG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, TWM achieves a -27.73% return, which is significantly lower than AMDG's 391.03% return.
TWM
- 1D
- 2.91%
- 1M
- -6.80%
- YTD
- -27.73%
- 6M
- -25.95%
- 1Y
- -48.58%
- 3Y*
- -29.21%
- 5Y*
- -17.11%
- 10Y*
- -27.65%
AMDG
- 1D
- 7.70%
- 1M
- 134.89%
- YTD
- 391.03%
- 6M
- 367.32%
- 1Y
- 1,172.87%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
TWM vs. AMDG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
TWM ProShares UltraShort Russell2000 | -27.73% | -19.51% |
AMDG Leverage Shares 2X Long AMD Daily ETF | 391.03% | 96.98% |
Correlation
The correlation between TWM and AMDG is -0.48, 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 | -0.48 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 27, 2025 | -0.54 |
The correlation between TWM and AMDG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from -0.54 to -0.48 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
TWM vs. AMDG — Risk / Return Rank
TWM
AMDG
TWM vs. AMDG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares UltraShort Russell2000 (TWM) and Leverage Shares 2X Long AMD Daily ETF (AMDG). 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.
| TWM | AMDG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -10.43 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -6.77 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.78 | 1.63 | -0.85 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.96 | 20.99 | -21.96 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.58 | 41.10 | -42.67 |
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
| TWM | AMDG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -1.28 | 9.15 | -10.43 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.38 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | -0.61 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.57 | 3.36 | -3.93 |
Drawdowns
TWM vs. AMDG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum TWM drawdown since its inception was -99.93%, which is greater than AMDG's maximum drawdown of -63.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TWM and AMDG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| TWM | AMDG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -99.93% | -63.04% | -36.89% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -50.49% | -56.48% | +5.99% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -72.74% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -75.23% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -96.62% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -99.93% | 0.00% | -99.93% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -87.28% | -25.70% | -61.58% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 30.86% | 28.80% | +2.06% |
Volatility
TWM vs. AMDG - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for ProShares UltraShort Russell2000 (TWM) is 11.60%, while Leverage Shares 2X Long AMD Daily ETF (AMDG) has a volatility of 45.35%. This indicates that TWM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than AMDG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| TWM | AMDG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 11.60% | 45.35% | -33.75% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 27.25% | 94.94% | -67.69% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 38.32% | 129.64% | -91.32% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 45.09% | 130.26% | -85.17% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 45.78% | 130.26% | -84.48% |
TWM vs. AMDG - Expense Ratio Comparison
TWM has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than AMDG's 0.75% expense ratio.
Dividends
TWM vs. AMDG - Dividend Comparison
TWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.27%, more than AMDG's 2.28% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AMDG Leverage Shares 2X Long AMD Daily ETF | 2.28% | 11.21% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
TWM ProShares UltraShort Russell2000 | 6.27% | 5.36% | 6.21% | 4.72% | 0.17% | 0.00% | 0.41% | 1.49% | 0.73% | 0.05% |
Frequently Asked Questions
TWM and AMDG have a correlation of -0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
AMDG has higher volatility (45.35%) compared to TWM (11.60%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TWM dropped -99.93% vs AMDG's -63.04%.
On 1-year performance, AMDG leads with 1172.87% vs -48.58% for TWM. On fees, AMDG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, TWM has been the lower-risk option at 11.60%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, AMDG has performed better with a 1172.87% return vs -48.58%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
AMDG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for TWM.
TWM has the higher dividend yield at 6.27%, compared with 2.28% for AMDG.
They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Leverage Shares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for TWM and 0.75% for AMDG.
AMDG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (9.15 vs -1.28), 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.
Find the right allocation for TWM and AMDG
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