PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
UMDD vs. NOBL
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

UMDD vs. NOBL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares UltraPro MidCap400 (UMDD) and ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF (NOBL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, UMDD achieves a 38.16% return, which is significantly higher than NOBL's 6.48% return. Over the past 10 years, UMDD has outperformed NOBL with an annualized return of 13.11%, while NOBL has yielded a comparatively lower 9.97% annualized return.


UMDD

1D
-2.96%
1M
7.10%
YTD
38.16%
6M
30.23%
1Y
64.17%
3Y*
25.89%
5Y*
3.07%
10Y*
13.11%

NOBL

1D
0.68%
1M
2.27%
YTD
6.48%
6M
5.98%
1Y
12.52%
3Y*
8.50%
5Y*
6.18%
10Y*
9.97%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

UMDD vs. NOBL - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
UMDD
ProShares UltraPro MidCap400
38.16%-2.57%19.68%27.21%-49.60%72.27%-17.30%78.90%-40.29%49.17%
NOBL
ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
6.48%6.84%6.72%8.09%-6.52%25.46%8.35%27.39%-3.26%21.02%

Correlation

The correlation between UMDD and NOBL is 0.65, 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

0.65

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.74

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.80

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.81

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 10, 2013

0.82

The correlation between UMDD and NOBL shifts across timeframes, from 0.65 (1 year) to 0.82 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

UMDD vs. NOBL - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
UMDD
NOBL

Industrials

24.8%
20.2%

Technology

17.9%
4.6%

Financial Services

13.6%
12.8%

Consumer Cyclical

10.5%
5.3%

Healthcare

9.1%
10.2%

Real Estate

7.3%
4.6%

Energy

4.9%
2.9%

Basic Materials

4.8%
10.2%

Consumer Defensive

3.3%
23.6%

Utilities

2.9%
5.7%

Communication Services

1.0%

-

Industrials

UMDD
24.8%
NOBL
20.2%

Technology

UMDD
17.9%
NOBL
4.6%

Financial Services

UMDD
13.6%
NOBL
12.8%

Consumer Cyclical

UMDD
10.5%
NOBL
5.3%

Healthcare

UMDD
9.1%
NOBL
10.2%

Real Estate

UMDD
7.3%
NOBL
4.6%

Energy

UMDD
4.9%
NOBL
2.9%

Basic Materials

UMDD
4.8%
NOBL
10.2%

Consumer Defensive

UMDD
3.3%
NOBL
23.6%

Utilities

UMDD
2.9%
NOBL
5.7%

Communication Services

UMDD
1.0%
NOBL

-

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

UMDD vs. NOBL — Risk / Return Rank

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

UMDD
UMDD Risk / Return Rank: 4545
Overall Rank
UMDD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4141
Sharpe Ratio Rank
UMDD Sortino Ratio Rank: 4141
Sortino Ratio Rank
UMDD Omega Ratio Rank: 3838
Omega Ratio Rank
UMDD Calmar Ratio Rank: 5454
Calmar Ratio Rank
UMDD Martin Ratio Rank: 5151
Martin Ratio Rank

NOBL
NOBL Risk / Return Rank: 2929
Overall Rank
NOBL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3131
Sharpe Ratio Rank
NOBL Sortino Ratio Rank: 3232
Sortino Ratio Rank
NOBL Omega Ratio Rank: 2828
Omega Ratio Rank
NOBL Calmar Ratio Rank: 2828
Calmar Ratio Rank
NOBL Martin Ratio Rank: 2727
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

UMDD vs. NOBL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares UltraPro MidCap400 (UMDD) and ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF (NOBL). 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.


UMDDNOBLDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.26

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.31

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.24

1.19

+0.05

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.48

1.38

+1.10

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.28

3.50

+4.78

UMDD vs. NOBL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UMDD Sharpe Ratio is 1.36, which is comparable to the NOBL Sharpe Ratio of 1.10. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UMDD and NOBL, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

UMDD vs. NOBL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UMDD drawdown since its inception was -86.24%, which is greater than NOBL's maximum drawdown of -35.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UMDD and NOBL.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


UMDDNOBLDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-86.24%

-35.43%

-50.81%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-26.04%

-9.11%

-16.93%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-60.33%

-15.36%

-44.97%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-64.61%

-17.92%

-46.69%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-86.24%

-35.43%

-50.81%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-5.38%

-3.29%

-2.09%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-23.55%

-3.48%

-20.07%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

7.77%

3.58%

+4.19%

Volatility

UMDD vs. NOBL - Volatility Comparison

ProShares UltraPro MidCap400 (UMDD) has a higher volatility of 13.54% compared to ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF (NOBL) at 3.31%. This indicates that UMDD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than NOBL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


UMDDNOBLDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

13.54%

3.31%

+10.23%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

35.31%

8.22%

+27.09%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

47.51%

11.52%

+35.99%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

58.96%

14.38%

+44.58%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

62.23%

16.60%

+45.63%

UMDD vs. NOBL - Expense Ratio Comparison

UMDD has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than NOBL's 0.35% expense ratio.


Dividends

UMDD vs. NOBL - Dividend Comparison

UMDD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.76%, less than NOBL's 2.06% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
NOBL
ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
2.06%2.14%2.05%2.09%1.94%1.89%2.14%1.89%2.37%1.74%2.13%2.02%
UMDD
ProShares UltraPro MidCap400
0.76%1.00%0.76%0.19%0.49%0.06%0.08%0.64%0.32%0.00%0.03%0.06%

Frequently Asked Questions


UMDD and NOBL have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

UMDD has higher volatility (13.54%) compared to NOBL (3.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UMDD dropped -86.24% vs NOBL's -35.43%.

On 10-year performance, UMDD leads with 13.11% vs 9.97% for NOBL. On fees, NOBL is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, NOBL has been the lower-risk option at 3.31%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, UMDD has performed better with a 13.11% return vs 9.97%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

NOBL is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for UMDD.

NOBL has the higher dividend yield at 2.06%, compared with 0.76% for UMDD.

UMDD is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while NOBL is Dividend. UMDD tracks S&P MidCap 400 Index (300%), while NOBL tracks S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats Index. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for UMDD and 0.35% for NOBL.

UMDD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.36 vs 1.10), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for UMDD and NOBL

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