UWM vs. COTG
UWM (ProShares Ultra Russell2000) and COTG (Leverage Shares 2X Long COST Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. UWM is passively managed, while COTG is actively managed. At a correlation of -0.05, they often move in opposite directions. UWM charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for COTG.
Performance
UWM vs. COTG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, UWM achieves a 31.87% return, which is significantly higher than COTG's 17.32% return.
UWM
- 1D
- -2.69%
- 1M
- 6.41%
- YTD
- 31.87%
- 6M
- 28.56%
- 1Y
- 76.77%
- 3Y*
- 25.03%
- 5Y*
- 1.71%
- 10Y*
- 12.16%
COTG
- 1D
- 1.39%
- 1M
- -11.21%
- YTD
- 17.32%
- 6M
- 1.51%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
UWM vs. COTG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
UWM ProShares Ultra Russell2000 | 31.87% | -0.70% |
COTG Leverage Shares 2X Long COST Daily ETF | 17.32% | -21.71% |
Correlation
The correlation between UWM and COTG is -0.05, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 19, 2025 | -0.05 |
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. COTG — Risk / Return Rank
UWM
COTG
UWM vs. COTG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra Russell2000 (UWM) and Leverage Shares 2X Long COST Daily ETF (COTG). 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.
| UWM | COTG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.31 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.46 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 11.85 | — | — |
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
| UWM | COTG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.03 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.04 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.26 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.14 | -0.28 | +0.43 |
Drawdowns
UWM vs. COTG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum UWM drawdown since its inception was -88.21%, which is greater than COTG's maximum drawdown of -25.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UWM and COTG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| UWM | COTG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -88.21% | -25.69% | -62.52% |
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 | -3.55% | -23.48% | +19.93% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -30.88% | -8.35% | -22.53% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 6.50% | — | — |
Volatility
UWM vs. COTG - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| UWM | COTG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 11.45% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 26.82% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 38.04% | 40.65% | -2.61% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 45.01% | 40.65% | +4.36% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 46.08% | 40.65% | +5.43% |
UWM vs. COTG - Expense Ratio Comparison
UWM has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than COTG's 0.75% expense ratio.
Dividends
UWM vs. COTG - Dividend Comparison
UWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.78%, while COTG has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
COTG Leverage Shares 2X Long COST 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 | 0.78% | 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 COTG have a correlation of -0.05, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, COTG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
COTG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for UWM.
UWM has the higher dividend yield at 0.78%, compared with 0.00% for COTG.
They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Leverage Shares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for UWM and 0.75% for COTG.
Find the right allocation for UWM and COTG
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