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

Performance

UWM vs. NOBL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Ultra Russell2000 (UWM) 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, UWM achieves a 38.52% return, which is significantly higher than NOBL's 11.50% return. Over the past 10 years, UWM has outperformed NOBL with an annualized return of 11.49%, while NOBL has yielded a comparatively lower 9.85% annualized return.


UWM

1D
3.34%
1M
-1.55%
6M
23.05%
YTD
38.52%
1Y
76.90%
3Y*
22.09%
5Y*
4.52%
10Y*
11.49%
ALL TIME*
7.33%

NOBL

1D
0.60%
1M
-0.50%
6M
4.99%
YTD
11.50%
1Y
16.10%
3Y*
8.76%
5Y*
6.69%
10Y*
9.85%
ALL TIME*
10.74%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$70.34M$67.56M$62.19M
$17.74M$17.63M$19.86M

UWM vs. NOBL - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
UWM
ProShares Ultra Russell2000
38.52%13.59%11.32%22.62%-43.69%23.91%16.57%48.62%-25.89%26.92%
NOBL
ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
11.50%6.84%6.72%8.09%-6.52%25.46%8.35%27.39%-3.26%21.02%

Correlation

The correlation between UWM and NOBL is 0.44, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.44

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.63

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.71

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.73

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

0.74

Over the past year, the correlation between UWM and NOBL has dropped to 0.44 - well below their long-term average of 0.74, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

UWM vs. NOBL - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
UWM
NOBL

Financial Services

41.4%
13.2%

Healthcare

11.1%
10.8%

Technology

7.8%
4.3%

Industrials

7.6%
20.3%

Consumer Cyclical

5.1%
5.3%

Real Estate

4.0%
4.6%

Energy

3.4%
2.9%

Basic Materials

2.6%
9.4%

Utilities

1.8%
5.7%

Consumer Defensive

1.6%
23.3%

Communication Services

0.9%

-

Financial Services

UWM
41.4%
NOBL
13.2%

Healthcare

UWM
11.1%
NOBL
10.8%

Technology

UWM
7.8%
NOBL
4.3%

Industrials

UWM
7.6%
NOBL
20.3%

Consumer Cyclical

UWM
5.1%
NOBL
5.3%

Real Estate

UWM
4.0%
NOBL
4.6%

Energy

UWM
3.4%
NOBL
2.9%

Basic Materials

UWM
2.6%
NOBL
9.4%

Utilities

UWM
1.8%
NOBL
5.7%

Consumer Defensive

UWM
1.6%
NOBL
23.3%

Communication Services

UWM
0.9%
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

UWM vs. NOBL — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

UWM
UWM Risk / Return Rank: 8181
Overall Rank
UWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8383
Sharpe Ratio Rank
UWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 7878
Sortino Ratio Rank
UWM Omega Ratio Rank: 7272
Omega Ratio Rank
UWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 8686
Calmar Ratio Rank
UWM Martin Ratio Rank: 8383
Martin Ratio Rank

NOBL
NOBL Risk / Return Rank: 5151
Overall Rank
NOBL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5656
Sharpe Ratio Rank
NOBL Sortino Ratio Rank: 6060
Sortino Ratio Rank
NOBL Omega Ratio Rank: 5050
Omega Ratio Rank
NOBL Calmar Ratio Rank: 4848
Calmar Ratio Rank
NOBL Martin Ratio Rank: 4242
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

UWM vs. NOBL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra Russell2000 (UWM) 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.


UWMNOBLDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.66

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.56

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.31

1.23

+0.08

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.47

1.77

+1.69

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.84

4.49

+7.35

UWM vs. NOBL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UWM Sharpe Ratio is 2.02, which is higher than the NOBL Sharpe Ratio of 1.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UWM 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

UWM vs. NOBL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UWM drawdown since its inception was -88.21%, which is greater than NOBL's maximum drawdown of -35.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UWM and NOBL.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


UWMNOBLDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-88.21%

-35.43%

-52.78%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-22.28%

-9.11%

-13.17%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-49.79%

-15.36%

-34.43%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-61.62%

-17.92%

-43.70%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-71.46%

-35.43%

-36.03%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.36%

-1.73%

-1.63%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-30.64%

-3.46%

-27.18%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

6.51%

3.59%

+2.92%

Volatility

UWM vs. NOBL - Volatility Comparison

ProShares Ultra Russell2000 (UWM) has a higher volatility of 8.22% compared to ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF (NOBL) at 4.72%. This indicates that UWM'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


UWMNOBLDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.22%

4.72%

+3.50%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

27.96%

9.11%

+18.85%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

38.36%

11.92%

+26.44%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

44.94%

14.48%

+30.46%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

46.03%

16.64%

+29.39%

UWM vs. NOBL - Expense Ratio Comparison

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


Dividends

UWM vs. NOBL - Dividend Comparison

UWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.81%, less than NOBL's 2.03% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
NOBL
ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
2.03%2.14%2.05%2.09%1.94%1.89%2.14%1.89%2.37%1.74%2.13%2.02%
UWM
ProShares Ultra Russell2000
0.81%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 NOBL have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

UWM has higher volatility (8.22%) compared to NOBL (4.72%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UWM dropped -88.21% vs NOBL's -35.43%.

On 10-year performance, UWM leads with 11.49% vs 9.85% for NOBL. On fees, NOBL is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, NOBL has been the lower-risk option at 4.72%. 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 11.49% return vs 9.85%. 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 UWM.

NOBL has the higher dividend yield at 2.03%, compared with 0.81% for UWM.

UWM is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while NOBL is Dividend. UWM tracks Russell 2000 Index (200%), while NOBL tracks S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats Index. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for UWM and 0.35% for NOBL.

UWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.02 vs 1.36), 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 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