Get the weekly note
ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

Data as of .

RWM vs UWM: which held to its multiple?

Over three months against its own daily promise, RWM finished 1.6 points over and UWM 1.3 points short.

ProShares Short Russell2000 and ProShares Ultra Russell2000, side by side, leveraged ETFs on ETFIQ.

+2.3%RWM returned, 3 months
−4.1%UWM returned, 3 months
+1.1 ptsRWM from its stated multiple
−1.8 ptsUWM from its stated multiple

ETFIQ Decay Resistance Score: UWM scores higher

Did it keep up with its own daily multiple, compounded day by day?

RWM 50.8UWM 90.90.4, the lowest in this set99.6, the highest

A percentile among the 121 inverse ETFs over three months. It is a position in a set, not a rating, and neither end of it is a recommendation. All leveraged ETFs ranked by it · How it is computed

RWM1.1 pts over its label · 3 months to Sep 11, 2026
IWM −1.1% ×1 implies+1.1%RWM returned+2.3%IWM −1.1% ×1 implies+1.1%RWM returned+2.3%
UWM1.8 pts short of its label · 3 months to Sep 11, 2026
IWM −1.1% ×2 implies−2.3%UWM returned−4.1%IWM −1.1% ×2 implies−2.3%UWM returned−4.1%

Performance, window by window

RWM and UWM over each window. Every figure is an ETFIQ calculation with distributions reinvested. Source: ETFIQ.
WindowTotal returnMultiple would giveDifference
RWMUWMRWMUWMRWMUWM
1 month+5.2%−9.5%+4.6%−9.1%+0.6 pts−0.4 pts
3 months+2.3%−4.1%+1.1%−2.3%+1.1 pts−1.8 pts
6 months−13.9%+32.6%−17.6%+35.3%+3.7 pts−2.6 pts
1 year−15.2%+34.6%−21.2%+42.4%+6.0 pts−7.8 pts
3 years−32.0%+92.3%−62.5%+125.1%+30.5 pts−32.7 pts
Since launch−90.3%+767.3%not meaningfulnot meaningfulnot meaningfulnot meaningful
Open the live comparison on ETFIQ
RWM and UWM on the same fields, as of Sep 11, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
RWM
ProShares Short Russell2000
Aims to return 1 times the opposite of the daily move of the Russell 2000
UWM
ProShares Ultra Russell2000
Aims to return twice the daily move of the Russell 2000
IssuerProSharesProShares
Sets out to return-1x+2x
OnIWMIWM
Segmentus small capus small cap
Fund returned, 3 months+2.3%−4.1%
Underlying returned, 3 months−1.1%−1.1%
What the stated multiple implies, 3 months+1.1%−2.3%
Difference from stated, 3 months+1.1 pts−1.8 pts
Fund returned, 1 year or since launch−15.2%+34.6%
Difference from stated, over that window+6.0 pts−7.8 pts
Underlying volatility14%14%
Expense rationot published0.95%
LaunchedJan 4, 2010Jan 4, 2010

RWM in plain words

Three months to Sep 11, 2026: RWM returned +2.3% where its own daily promise gave +0.7%, 1.6 points over. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and −1 times IWM's −1.1% implies +1.1%, which makes RWM look 1.1 points over. 0.4 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any −1 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. RWM aims to return -1 times IWM's move each day, then resets. Over one day it does that. Over longer, the daily results compound, so the total is not -1 times the period's move: in a market that falls and comes back it is reliably less, and in a steady run it can be more. IWM moved at 14% annualized over that window. That is what decides how far the two figures separate: the same fund on a calm underlying and a violent one is a different product.

UWM in plain words

Three months to Sep 11, 2026: UWM returned −4.1% where its own daily promise gave −2.7%, 1.3 points short. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and +2 times IWM's −1.1% implies −2.3%, which makes UWM look 1.8 points short. 0.4 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any +2 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. UWM aims to return +2 times IWM's move each day, then resets. Over longer, the daily results compound, so the total is not +2 times the period's move: in a market that falls and comes back it is reliably less, and in a steady run it can be more.

Questions people ask

Which came closer to its stated multiple, RWM or UWM?
Over the window to Sep 11, 2026, RWM finished 1.1 points from what its multiple implies and UWM finished 1.8 points from its own, so RWM came closer. Neither figure predicts the next window: it depends on how much the underlying moves about.
Are RWM and UWM levered on the same thing?
Yes. Both are levered on the Russell 2000, RWM at -1 times and UWM at +2 times the daily move.
Which one decays faster, RWM or UWM?
Decay follows how much the underlying moves about. Over this window RWM’s moved at 14% annualized and UWM’s at 14%, so RWM has the rougher ride and, at the same multiple, loses more to compounding.
Can I hold RWM or UWM for a year?
Both reset every day, so the multiple in the name applies to a single day and the daily results compound. Over a year the total is not the multiple times the year’s move, and in a market that falls and comes back it is reliably less. ETFIQ makes no recommendation either way.

Other comparisons

Where these figures came from

ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.

RWM against UWM, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 11, 2026. Every figure is arithmetic on a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, RWM against UWM, data as of Sep 11, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/RWM-UWM Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

How every figure is computed · Standards and sources