UWM vs. CSHP
UWM (ProShares Ultra Russell2000) and CSHP (iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - UWM is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index (200%), while CSHP is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by iShares. UWM is passively managed, while CSHP is actively managed. Over the past year, UWM returned 81.03% vs 3.94% for CSHP. At a 0.02 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. UWM charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for CSHP.
Performance
UWM vs. CSHP - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, UWM achieves a 38.71% return, which is significantly higher than CSHP's 1.83% return.
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%
CSHP
- 1D
- -0.03%
- 1M
- 0.27%
- YTD
- 1.83%
- 6M
- 1.92%
- 1Y
- 3.94%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
UWM vs. CSHP - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
UWM ProShares Ultra Russell2000 | 38.71% | 13.59% | -5.15% |
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF | 1.83% | 4.10% | 2.24% |
Correlation
The correlation between UWM and CSHP is -0.15, 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 | -0.15 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 18, 2024 | 0.02 |
The correlation between UWM and CSHP shifts across timeframes, from -0.15 (1 year) to 0.02 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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. CSHP — Risk / Return Rank
UWM
CSHP
UWM vs. CSHP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra Russell2000 (UWM) and iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP). 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 | CSHP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -9.00 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -24.94 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.31 | 6.46 | -5.14 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.66 | 65.45 | -61.79 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 12.47 | 381.67 | -369.20 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
UWM vs. CSHP - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum UWM drawdown since its inception was -88.21%, which is greater than CSHP's maximum drawdown of -0.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UWM and CSHP.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| UWM | CSHP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -88.21% | -0.08% | -88.13% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -22.28% | -0.06% | -22.22% |
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 | -1.93% | -0.04% | -1.89% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -30.80% | -0.00% | -30.80% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 6.52% | 0.01% | +6.51% |
Volatility
UWM vs. CSHP - Volatility Comparison
ProShares Ultra Russell2000 (UWM) has a higher volatility of 13.03% compared to iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP) at 0.16%. This indicates that UWM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CSHP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| UWM | CSHP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 13.03% | 0.16% | +12.87% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 28.39% | 0.27% | +28.12% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 39.12% | 0.36% | +38.76% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 45.16% | 0.41% | +44.75% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 46.13% | 0.41% | +45.72% |
UWM vs. CSHP - Expense Ratio Comparison
UWM has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than CSHP's 0.20% expense ratio.
Dividends
UWM vs. CSHP - Dividend Comparison
UWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.74%, less than CSHP's 3.91% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF | 3.91% | 5.39% | 1.96% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 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
UWM and CSHP have a correlation of -0.15, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
UWM has higher volatility (13.03%) compared to CSHP (0.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UWM dropped -88.21% vs CSHP's -0.08%.
On 1-year performance, UWM leads with 81.03% vs 3.94% for CSHP. On fees, CSHP is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, CSHP has been the lower-risk option at 0.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, UWM has performed better with a 81.03% return vs 3.94%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
CSHP is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for UWM.
CSHP has the higher dividend yield at 3.91%, compared with 0.74% for UWM.
UWM is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while CSHP is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for UWM and 0.20% for CSHP.
CSHP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.09 vs 2.09), 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 UWM and CSHP
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