TWM vs. FUTG
TWM (ProShares UltraShort Russell2000) and FUTG (Leverage Shares 2X Long FUTU Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. TWM is passively managed, while FUTG is actively managed. At a correlation of -0.50, they often move in opposite directions. TWM charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for FUTG.
Performance
TWM vs. FUTG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, TWM achieves a -27.73% return, which is significantly higher than FUTG's -75.53% 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%
FUTG
- 1D
- -11.10%
- 1M
- -70.24%
- YTD
- -75.53%
- 6M
- -77.00%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
TWM vs. FUTG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
TWM ProShares UltraShort Russell2000 | -27.73% | 0.61% |
FUTG Leverage Shares 2X Long FUTU Daily ETF | -75.53% | -0.80% |
Correlation
The correlation between TWM and FUTG is -0.50, 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 15, 2025 | -0.50 |
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. FUTG — Risk / Return Rank
TWM
FUTG
TWM vs. FUTG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares UltraShort Russell2000 (TWM) and Leverage Shares 2X Long FUTU Daily ETF (FUTG). 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 | FUTG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.78 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.96 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.58 | — | — |
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 | FUTG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -1.28 | — | — |
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 | -0.66 | +0.09 |
Drawdowns
TWM vs. FUTG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum TWM drawdown since its inception was -99.93%, which is greater than FUTG's maximum drawdown of -86.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TWM and FUTG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| TWM | FUTG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -99.93% | -86.19% | -13.74% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -50.49% | — | — |
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% | -84.29% | -15.64% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -87.28% | -40.35% | -46.93% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 30.86% | — | — |
Volatility
TWM vs. FUTG - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| TWM | FUTG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 11.60% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 27.25% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 38.32% | 136.01% | -97.69% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 45.09% | 136.01% | -90.92% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 45.78% | 136.01% | -90.23% |
TWM vs. FUTG - Expense Ratio Comparison
TWM has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than FUTG's 0.75% expense ratio.
Dividends
TWM vs. FUTG - Dividend Comparison
TWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.27%, while FUTG has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FUTG Leverage Shares 2X Long FUTU Daily ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 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 FUTG have a correlation of -0.50, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, FUTG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
FUTG 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 0.00% for FUTG.
They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Leverage Shares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for TWM and 0.75% for FUTG.
Find the right allocation for TWM and FUTG
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