UWM vs. BMNG
UWM (ProShares Ultra Russell2000) and BMNG (Leverage Shares 2X Long BMNR Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. UWM is passively managed, while BMNG is actively managed. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. UWM charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for BMNG.
Performance
UWM vs. BMNG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, UWM achieves a 36.62% return, which is significantly higher than BMNG's -83.14% return.
UWM
- 1D
- -1.64%
- 1M
- 0.31%
- 6M
- 21.36%
- YTD
- 36.62%
- 1Y
- 63.22%
- 3Y*
- 22.43%
- 5Y*
- 4.04%
- 10Y*
- 11.79%
BMNG
- 1D
- -4.71%
- 1M
- -22.33%
- 6M
- -86.67%
- YTD
- -83.14%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
UWM vs. BMNG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
UWM ProShares Ultra Russell2000 | 36.62% | -3.46% |
BMNG Leverage Shares 2X Long BMNR Daily ETF | -83.14% | -80.50% |
Correlation
The correlation between UWM and BMNG is 0.60, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 27, 2025 | 0.60 |
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
UWM vs. BMNG — Risk / Return Rank
UWM
BMNG
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
UWM vs. BMNG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra Russell2000 (UWM) and Leverage Shares 2X Long BMNR Daily ETF (BMNG). 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.
| UWM | BMNG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.26 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.85 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.72 | — | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
UWM vs. BMNG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum UWM drawdown since its inception was -88.21%, smaller than the maximum BMNG drawdown of -97.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UWM and BMNG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| UWM | BMNG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -88.21% | -97.32% | +9.11% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -22.28% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -49.79% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -61.62% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -71.46% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -4.69% | -96.86% | +92.17% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -30.72% | -83.13% | +52.41% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 6.52% | — | — |
Volatility
UWM vs. BMNG - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| UWM | BMNG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 9.46% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 28.11% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 38.75% | 185.89% | -147.14% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 45.08% | 185.89% | -140.81% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 46.00% | 185.89% | -139.89% |
UWM vs. BMNG - Expense Ratio Comparison
UWM has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than BMNG's 0.75% expense ratio.
Dividends
UWM vs. BMNG - Dividend Comparison
UWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.82%, while BMNG has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BMNG Leverage Shares 2X Long BMNR Daily ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
UWM ProShares Ultra Russell2000 | 0.82% | 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
UWM and BMNG have a correlation of 0.60, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, BMNG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
BMNG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for UWM.
UWM has the higher dividend yield at 0.82%, compared with 0.00% for BMNG.
They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Leverage Shares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for UWM and 0.75% for BMNG.
Find the right allocation for UWM and BMNG
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