PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
UWM vs. IWM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

UWM vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

UWM (ProShares Ultra Russell2000) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - UWM is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index (200%), while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, UWM returned 13.44%/yr vs 11.58%/yr for IWM. With a 0.99 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. UWM charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

UWM vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Ultra Russell2000 (UWM) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, UWM achieves a 38.71% return, which is significantly higher than IWM's 20.47% return. Over the past 10 years, UWM has outperformed IWM with an annualized return of 13.44%, while IWM has yielded a comparatively lower 11.58% annualized 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%

IWM

1D
-0.96%
1M
3.82%
YTD
20.47%
6M
17.64%
1Y
40.90%
3Y*
19.22%
5Y*
6.27%
10Y*
11.58%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

UWM vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
UWM
ProShares Ultra Russell2000		38.71%13.59%11.32%22.62%-43.69%23.91%16.57%48.62%-25.89%26.92%
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		20.47%12.66%11.38%16.83%-20.48%14.54%20.03%25.39%-11.12%14.58%

Correlation

The correlation between UWM and IWM is 1.00 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.00

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

1.00

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

1.00

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

1.00

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 25, 2007

0.99

The correlation between UWM and IWM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.99 to 1.00 - a consistent structural relationship.

UWM vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
UWM
IWM

Technology

19.1%
20.1%

Industrials

17.8%
17.3%

Healthcare

16.3%
15.6%

Financial Services

15.5%
15.5%

Consumer Cyclical

7.9%
8.0%

Real Estate

5.9%
5.5%

Energy

5.4%
6.0%

Basic Materials

4.7%
4.5%

Utilities

2.7%
3.1%

Communication Services

2.5%
1.7%

Consumer Defensive

2.2%
2.0%

Technology

UWM
19.1%
IWM
20.1%

Industrials

UWM
17.8%
IWM
17.3%

Healthcare

UWM
16.3%
IWM
15.6%

Financial Services

UWM
15.5%
IWM
15.5%

Consumer Cyclical

UWM
7.9%
IWM
8.0%

Real Estate

UWM
5.9%
IWM
5.5%

Energy

UWM
5.4%
IWM
6.0%

Basic Materials

UWM
4.7%
IWM
4.5%

Utilities

UWM
2.7%
IWM
3.1%

Communication Services

UWM
2.5%
IWM
1.7%

Consumer Defensive

UWM
2.2%
IWM
2.0%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

ProShares Ultra Russell2000

iShares Russell 2000 ETF

Often compared with UWM:
UWM vs. TNAUWM vs. URTYUWM vs. TQQQUWM vs. SPYUWM vs. VTWOUWM vs. IWOUWM vs. IWP
Often compared with IWM:
IWM vs. SPYIWM vs. VTWOIWM vs. IJRIWM vs. AVUVIWM vs. IWNIWM vs. VOOIWM vs. TNA

Return for Risk

UWM vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
UWM
UWM Risk / Return Rank: 6565
Overall Rank
UWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6868
Sharpe Ratio Rank
UWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 6060
Sortino Ratio Rank
UWM Omega Ratio Rank: 5353
Omega Ratio Rank
UWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7575
Calmar Ratio Rank
UWM Martin Ratio Rank: 7171
Martin Ratio Rank
IWM
IWM Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6666
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 6464
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 5757
Omega Ratio Rank
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7575
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 7373
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.

UWM vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra Russell2000 (UWM) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM). 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.

UWMIWMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.09
2.08

0.00

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.65
2.86

-0.21

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.31

1.34

-0.03

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.66

3.73

-0.07

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.47

13.18

-0.71

UWM vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UWM Sharpe Ratio is 2.09, which is comparable to the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UWM and IWM, 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

UWM vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UWM drawdown since its inception was -88.21%, which is greater than IWM's maximum drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UWM and IWM.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

UWMIWMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-88.21%

-59.05%

-29.16%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-22.28%

-11.03%

-11.25%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-49.79%

-27.50%

-22.29%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-61.62%

-31.91%

-29.71%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-71.46%

-41.13%

-30.33%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.93%

-0.96%

-0.97%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-30.80%

-10.75%

-20.05%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

6.52%

3.11%

+3.41%

Volatility

UWM vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

ProShares Ultra Russell2000 (UWM) has a higher volatility of 13.03% compared to iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) at 6.56%. This indicates that UWM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

UWMIWMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

13.03%

6.56%

+6.47%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

28.39%

14.31%

+14.08%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

39.12%

19.74%

+19.38%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

45.16%

22.61%

+22.55%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

46.13%

23.06%

+23.07%

UWM vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

UWM has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

UWM vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

UWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.74%, less than IWM's 0.90% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		0.90%1.04%1.15%1.35%1.48%0.94%1.04%1.26%1.40%1.26%1.38%1.54%
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

With a correlation of 1.00, UWM and IWM move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

UWM has higher volatility (13.03%) compared to IWM (6.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UWM dropped -88.21% vs IWM's -59.05%.

On 10-year performance, UWM leads with 13.44% vs 11.58% for IWM. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, IWM has been the lower-risk option at 6.56%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, UWM has performed better with a 13.44% return vs 11.58%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IWM is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for UWM.

IWM has the higher dividend yield at 0.90%, compared with 0.74% for UWM.

UWM is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. UWM tracks Russell 2000 Index (200%), while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for UWM and 0.19% for IWM.

UWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.09 vs 2.08), 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 UWM and IWM

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