RWM vs TWM: which held to its multiple?

Over three months against its own daily promise, RWM finished 1.6 points over and TWM 3.0 points over. ProShares Short Russell2000 and ProShares UltraShort Russell2000.

+8.6%
RWM returned, 3 months
+16.9%
TWM returned, 3 months
+1.7 pts
RWM from its stated multiple
+3.0 pts
TWM from its stated multiple
RWM · 3 months to Sep 30, 20261.7 pts ahead of its stated multiple
1.7 pts ahead of its stated multipleRWM returned +8.6% while −1 times IWM's move would have been +6.9%IWM −6.9% ×−1 implies+6.9%RWM returned+8.6%1.7 pts ahead of its stated multipleRWM returned +8.6% while −1 times IWM's move would have been +6.9%IWM −6.9% ×−1 implies+6.9%RWM returned+8.6%

RWM returned +8.6% while −1 times IWM's move would have been +6.9%

TWM · 3 months to Sep 30, 20263 pts ahead of its stated multiple
3 pts ahead of its stated multipleTWM returned +16.9% while −2 times IWM's move would have been +13.8%IWM −6.9% ×−2 implies+13.8%TWM returned+16.9%3 pts ahead of its stated multipleTWM returned +16.9% while −2 times IWM's move would have been +13.8%IWM −6.9% ×−2 implies+13.8%TWM returned+16.9%

TWM returned +16.9% while −2 times IWM's move would have been +13.8%

ETFIQ Decay Resistance Score · TWM scores higherDid it keep up with its own daily multiple, compounded day by day?
0.4, the lowest in this set99.6, the highest

A percentile among the 125 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

Total returnMultiple would giveDifference
WindowRWMTWMRWMTWMRWMTWM
1 month+5.9%+11.9%+5.2%+10.4%+0.7 pts+1.5 pts
3 months+8.6%+16.9%+6.9%+13.8%+1.7 pts+3.0 pts
6 months−9.3%−19.5%−11.9%−23.8%+2.6 pts+4.3 pts
1 year−11.5%−26.1%−16.0%−32.0%+4.5 pts+6.0 pts
3 years−32.3%−64.3%−62.6%−125.2%+30.3 pts+60.8 pts
Since launch
RWM Jan 2010 · TWM Jan 2010
−89.9%−99.6%not meaningfulnot meaningfulnot meaningfulnot meaningful

RWM and TWM over each window. Every figure is an ETFIQ calculation with distributions reinvested. Source: ETFIQ. Open the live comparison on ETFIQ →

On the same fields

RWM
ProShares Short Russell2000 · Aims to return 1 times the opposite of the daily move of the Russell 2000
TWM
ProShares UltraShort Russell2000 · Aims to return twice the opposite of the daily move of the Russell 2000
Issuer ProShares ProShares
Sets out to return -1x -2x
Underlying asset IWM IWM
Segment us small cap us small cap
Fund returned, 3 months or since launch +8.6% +16.9%
Underlying returned, over that window −6.9% −6.9%
What the stated multiple implies, over that window +6.9% +13.8%
Difference from stated, over that window +1.7 pts +3.0 pts
Fund returned, 1 year or since launch −11.5% −26.1%
Difference from stated, over that window +4.5 pts +6.0 pts
Underlying volatility 13% 13%
Expense ratio 0.95% 0.95%
Launched Jan 4, 2010 Jan 4, 2010
Net assets $170m $66m

RWM and TWM on the same fields, as of Sep 30, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.

RWM in plain words

Three months to Sep 30, 2026: RWM returned +8.6% where its own daily promise gave +7.0%, 1.6 points over. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and −1 times IWM's −6.9% implies +6.9%, which makes RWM look 1.7 points over. 0.0 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 13% 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.

TWM in plain words

Three months to Sep 30, 2026: TWM returned +16.9% where its own daily promise gave +13.9%, 3.0 points over. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and −2 times IWM's −6.9% implies +13.8%, which makes TWM look 3.0 points over. 0.1 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any −2 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. TWM 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 TWM?
Over the window to Sep 30, 2026, RWM finished 1.7 points from what its multiple implies and TWM finished 3.0 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 TWM levered on the same thing?
Yes. Both are levered on the Russell 2000, RWM at -1 times and TWM at -2 times the daily move.
Which one decays faster, RWM or TWM?
Decay follows how much the underlying moves about. Over this window RWM’s moved at 13% annualized and TWM’s at 13%, so RWM has the rougher ride and, at the same multiple, loses more to compounding.
Can I hold RWM or TWM 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, RWM or TWM?
RWM charges 0.95% a year and TWM charges 0.95%, so RWM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Cite this page

ETFIQ, RWM against TWM, data as of Sep 30, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/rwm-vs-twm

Open data

Free to use with attribution. Every figure is calculated from a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology.