UCYB vs. INTW

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

UCYB (ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Cybersecurity) and INTW (GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. UCYB is passively managed, while INTW is actively managed. Over the past year, UCYB returned 12.91% vs 1806.94% for INTW. At a 0.28 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. UCYB charges 0.97%/yr vs 1.50%/yr for INTW.

Performance

UCYB vs. INTW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Cybersecurity (UCYB) and GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, UCYB achieves a 27.14% return, which is significantly lower than INTW's 760.00% return.

UCYB

• 1D: -0.13%
• 1M: -3.95%
• YTD: 27.14%
• 6M: 21.84%
• 1Y: 12.91%
• 3Y*: 36.10%
• 5Y*: 10.93%
• 10Y*: —

INTW

• 1D: 2.24%
• 1M: 6.98%
• YTD: 760.00%
• 6M: 794.84%
• 1Y: 1,806.94%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

UCYB vs. INTW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
UCYB ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Cybersecurity	27.14%	-7.95%
INTW GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF	760.00%	60.89%

Correlation

The correlation between UCYB and INTW is 0.24, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.24
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 13, 2025	0.28

UCYB vs. INTW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	UCYB	INTW
Technology	95.1%	66.7%
Industrials	4.8%	-
Communication Services	0.1%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

UCYB vs. INTW — Risk / Return Rank

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

UCYB

UCYB Risk / Return Rank: 13
UCYB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
UCYB Sortino Ratio Rank: 14
UCYB Omega Ratio Rank: 14
UCYB Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
UCYB Martin Ratio Rank: 12

INTW

INTW Risk / Return Rank: 98
INTW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
INTW Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
INTW Omega Ratio Rank: 95
INTW Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
INTW Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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.

UCYB vs. INTW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Cybersecurity (UCYB) and GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW). 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.

	UCYB	INTW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.25	12.22	-11.97
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.71	5.03	-4.32
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.09	1.64	-0.55
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.30	37.08	-36.78
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.65	84.02	-83.37

UCYB vs. INTW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UCYB Sharpe Ratio is 0.25, which is lower than the INTW Sharpe Ratio of 12.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UCYB and INTW, 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

UCYB vs. INTW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UCYB drawdown since its inception was -62.69%, roughly equal to the maximum INTW drawdown of -60.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UCYB and INTW.

Drawdown Indicators

	UCYB	INTW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.69%	-60.58%	-2.11%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-43.04%	-49.34%	+6.30%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-43.04%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-62.69%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-22.60%	-11.49%	-11.11%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-27.38%	-29.56%	+2.18%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	19.92%	21.73%	-1.81%

Volatility

UCYB vs. INTW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Cybersecurity (UCYB) is 24.42%, while GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW) has a volatility of 55.56%. This indicates that UCYB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than INTW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	UCYB	INTW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	24.42%	55.56%	-31.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	43.72%	119.04%	-75.32%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	50.88%	149.73%	-98.85%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	50.24%	148.46%	-98.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	49.71%	148.46%	-98.75%

UCYB vs. INTW - Expense Ratio Comparison

UCYB has a 0.97% expense ratio, which is lower than INTW's 1.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

UCYB vs. INTW - Dividend Comparison

UCYB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.82%, while INTW has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
INTW GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
UCYB ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Cybersecurity	1.82%	1.90%	2.16%	0.56%	0.00%	0.91%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both UCYB and INTW in my portfolio?

UCYB and INTW have a correlation of 0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, UCYB or INTW?

INTW has higher volatility (55.56%) compared to UCYB (24.42%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UCYB dropped -62.69% vs INTW's -60.58%.

Which ETF is better, UCYB or INTW?

On 1-year performance, INTW leads with 1806.94% vs 12.91% for UCYB. On fees, UCYB is cheaper at 0.97% per year. On volatility, UCYB has been the lower-risk option at 24.42%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, UCYB or INTW?

Over the 1-year period, INTW has performed better with a 1806.94% return vs 12.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, UCYB or INTW?

UCYB is cheaper with a 0.97% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for INTW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, UCYB or INTW?

UCYB has the higher dividend yield at 1.82%, compared with 0.00% for INTW.

What is the main difference between UCYB and INTW?

They also come from different issuers: ProShares and GraniteShares. Their fees differ too: 0.97% for UCYB and 1.50% for INTW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

INTW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (12.22 vs 0.25), 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.