Data as of .
SMN vs UYM: which held to its multiple?
Over three months against its own daily promise, SMN finished 2.6 points over and UYM 1.7 points short.
ETFIQ Decay Resistance Score: UYM scores higher
Did it keep up with its own daily multiple, compounded day by day?
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
Performance, window by window
| Window | Total return | Multiple would give | Difference | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SMN | UYM | SMN | UYM | SMN | UYM | |
| 1 month | +6.9% | −6.8% | +6.2% | −6.2% | +0.7 pts | −0.6 pts |
| 3 months | +4.5% | −6.3% | +4.0% | −4.0% | +0.5 pts | −2.3 pts |
| 6 months | −8.9% | +4.0% | −8.8% | +8.8% | 0.0 pts | −4.8 pts |
| 1 year | −19.6% | +14.5% | −24.0% | +24.0% | +4.4 pts | −9.6 pts |
| 3 years | −37.5% | +30.7% | −63.3% | +63.3% | +25.9 pts | −32.7 pts |
| Since launch | −99.1% | +293.3% | not meaningful | not meaningful | not meaningful | not meaningful |
| SMN ProShares UltraShort Materials Aims to return twice the opposite of the daily move of Materials (XLB) | UYM ProShares Ultra Materials Aims to return twice the daily move of Materials (XLB) | |
|---|---|---|
| Issuer | ProShares | ProShares |
| Sets out to return | -2x | +2x |
| On | XLB | XLB |
| Segment | sector | sector |
| Fund returned, 3 months | +4.5% | −6.3% |
| Underlying returned, 3 months | −2.0% | −2.0% |
| What the stated multiple implies, 3 months | +4.0% | −4.0% |
| Difference from stated, 3 months | +0.5 pts | −2.3 pts |
| Fund returned, 1 year or since launch | −19.6% | +14.5% |
| Difference from stated, over that window | +4.4 pts | −9.6 pts |
| Underlying volatility | 17% | 17% |
| Difference over the days both have traded | no shared window | −2.3 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.95% | 0.95% |
| Launched | Jan 4, 2010 | Jan 4, 2010 |
SMN in plain words
Three months to Sep 11, 2026: SMN returned +4.5% where its own daily promise gave +1.9%, 2.6 points over. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and −2 times XLB's −2.0% implies +4.0%, which makes SMN look 0.5 points over. 2.1 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any −2 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. SMN aims to return -2 times XLB's move each day, then resets. Over one day it does that. 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. XLB moved at 17% 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.
UYM in plain words
Three months to Sep 11, 2026: UYM returned −6.3% where its own daily promise gave −4.6%, 1.7 points short. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and +2 times XLB's −2.0% implies −4.0%, which makes UYM look 2.3 points short. 0.7 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any +2 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. UYM aims to return +2 times XLB'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, SMN or UYM?
- Over the window to Sep 11, 2026, SMN finished 0.5 points from what its multiple implies and UYM finished 2.3 points from its own, so SMN came closer. Neither figure predicts the next window: it depends on how much the underlying moves about.
- Are SMN and UYM levered on the same thing?
- Yes. Both are levered on Materials, SMN at -2 times and UYM at +2 times the daily move.
- Which one decays faster, SMN or UYM?
- Decay follows how much the underlying moves about. Over this window SMN’s moved at 17% annualized and UYM’s at 17%, so SMN has the rougher ride and, at the same multiple, loses more to compounding.
- Can I hold SMN or UYM 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.
- Which is cheaper, SMN or UYM?
- SMN charges 0.95% a year and UYM charges 0.95%, so SMN is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, SMN against UYM, data as of Sep 11, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/SMN-UYM Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.