TZA vs. UWM
TZA (Direxion Daily Small Cap Bear 3X Shares) and UWM (ProShares Ultra Russell2000) are both Leveraged Equities funds - TZA tracks the Russell 2000 Index (-300%) while UWM tracks the Russell 2000 Index (200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, TZA returned -44.17%/yr vs 13.44%/yr for UWM. At a correlation of -1.00, they often move in opposite directions. TZA charges 1.11%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for UWM.
Performance
TZA vs. UWM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, TZA achieves a -46.35% return, which is significantly lower than UWM's 38.71% return. Over the past 10 years, TZA has underperformed UWM with an annualized return of -44.17%, while UWM has yielded a comparatively higher 13.44% annualized return.
TZA
- 1D
- 2.05%
- 1M
- -12.69%
- YTD
- -46.35%
- 6M
- -42.28%
- 1Y
- -67.58%
- 3Y*
- -46.88%
- 5Y*
- -30.52%
- 10Y*
- -44.17%
UWM
- 1D
- -1.93%
- 1M
- 6.86%
- YTD
- 38.71%
- 6M
- 32.01%
- 1Y
- 81.03%
- 3Y*
- 27.92%
- 5Y*
- 1.93%
- 10Y*
- 13.44%
TZA vs. UWM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TZA Direxion Daily Small Cap Bear 3X Shares | -46.35% | -40.22% | -32.22% | -41.19% | 30.21% | -50.80% | -80.43% | -53.25% | 25.06% | -38.19% |
UWM ProShares Ultra Russell2000 | 38.71% | 13.59% | 11.32% | 22.62% | -43.69% | 23.91% | 16.57% | 48.62% | -25.89% | 26.92% |
Correlation
The correlation between TZA and UWM is -1.00, 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 | -1.00 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | -1.00 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -1.00 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | -1.00 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 19, 2008 | -1.00 |
The correlation between TZA and UWM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from -1.00 to -1.00 - 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
TZA vs. UWM — Risk / Return Rank
TZA
UWM
TZA vs. UWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Direxion Daily Small Cap Bear 3X Shares (TZA) and ProShares Ultra Russell2000 (UWM). 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.
| TZA | UWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -3.24 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -4.78 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.77 | 1.31 | -0.54 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -1.00 | 3.66 | -4.65 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.56 | 12.47 | -14.03 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
TZA vs. UWM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum TZA drawdown since its inception was -100.00%, which is greater than UWM's maximum drawdown of -88.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TZA and UWM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| TZA | UWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -100.00% | -88.21% | -11.79% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -68.07% | -22.28% | -45.79% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -89.28% | -49.79% | -39.49% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -91.56% | -61.62% | -29.94% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -99.74% | -71.46% | -28.28% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -100.00% | -1.93% | -98.07% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -97.99% | -30.80% | -67.19% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 43.46% | 6.52% | +36.94% |
Volatility
TZA vs. UWM - Volatility Comparison
Direxion Daily Small Cap Bear 3X Shares (TZA) has a higher volatility of 19.17% compared to ProShares Ultra Russell2000 (UWM) at 13.03%. This indicates that TZA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than UWM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| TZA | UWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 19.17% | 13.03% | +6.14% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 42.84% | 28.39% | +14.45% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 58.62% | 39.12% | +19.50% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 67.66% | 45.16% | +22.50% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 68.98% | 46.13% | +22.85% |
TZA vs. UWM - Expense Ratio Comparison
TZA has a 1.11% expense ratio, which is higher than UWM's 0.95% expense ratio.
Dividends
TZA vs. UWM - Dividend Comparison
TZA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.35%, more than UWM's 0.74% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TZA Direxion Daily Small Cap Bear 3X Shares | 5.35% | 5.08% | 5.40% | 5.49% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 1.21% | 1.56% | 0.63% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
UWM ProShares Ultra Russell2000 | 0.74% | 1.05% | 1.16% | 0.34% | 0.40% | 0.00% | 0.07% | 0.55% | 0.41% | 0.11% | 0.27% | 0.23% |
Frequently Asked Questions
TZA and UWM have a correlation of -1.00, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
TZA has higher volatility (19.17%) compared to UWM (13.03%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TZA dropped -100.00% vs UWM's -88.21%.
On 10-year performance, UWM leads with 13.44% vs -44.17% for TZA. On fees, UWM is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, UWM has been the lower-risk option at 13.03%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, UWM has performed better with a 13.44% return vs -44.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
UWM is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.11% for TZA.
TZA has the higher dividend yield at 5.35%, compared with 0.74% for UWM.
TZA tracks Russell 2000 Index (-300%), while UWM tracks Russell 2000 Index (200%). They also come from different issuers: Direxion and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 1.11% for TZA and 0.95% for UWM.
UWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.09 vs -1.16), 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 TZA and UWM
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