RWM vs UWM: which held to its multiple?
Over three months against its own daily promise, RWM finished 1.6 points over and UWM 1.1 points short. ProShares Short Russell2000 and ProShares Ultra Russell2000.
RWM returned +8.6% while −1 times IWM's move would have been +6.9%
UWM returned −14.9% while 2 times IWM's move would have been −13.8%
RWM among the 125 inverse ETFs over three months
UWM among the 470 leveraged ETFs, long, over three months
A percentile among the 125 inverse ETFs over three months. UWM is a percentile among the 470 leveraged ETFs, long, over three months, a different set, so the two marks are not on one scale. 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 return | Multiple would give | Difference | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Window | RWM | UWM | RWM | UWM | RWM | UWM |
| 1 month | +5.9% | −10.6% | +5.2% | −10.4% | +0.7 pts | −0.1 pts |
| 3 months | +8.6% | −14.9% | +6.9% | −13.8% | +1.7 pts | −1.0 pts |
| 6 months | −9.3% | +20.4% | −11.9% | +23.8% | +2.6 pts | −3.4 pts |
| 1 year | −11.5% | +23.5% | −16.0% | +32.0% | +4.5 pts | −8.6 pts |
| 3 years | −32.3% | +93.6% | −62.6% | +125.2% | +30.3 pts | −31.5 pts |
| Since launch RWM Jan 2010 · UWM Jan 2010 | −89.9% | +705.0% | not meaningful | not meaningful | not meaningful | not meaningful |
RWM and UWM 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 and UWM 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.
UWM in plain words
Three months to Sep 30, 2026: UWM returned −14.9% where its own daily promise gave −13.7%, 1.1 points short. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and 2 times IWM's −6.9% implies −13.8%, which makes UWM look 1.0 points short. 0.1 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 30, 2026, RWM finished 1.7 points from what its multiple implies and UWM finished 1.0 points from its own, so UWM 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 13% annualized and UWM’s at 13%, 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.
ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement. A comparison is not a recommendation.
ETFIQ, RWM against UWM, data as of Sep 30, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/rwm-vs-uwm
Free to use with attribution. Every figure is calculated from a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, RWM against UWM, data as of Sep 30, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/rwm-vs-uwm Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
Other forms
- Plain
- ETFIQ, RWM against UWM, data as of Sep 30, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/rwm-vs-uwm
- APA
- ETFIQ. (Sep 30, 2026). RWM against UWM. Retrieved from https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/rwm-vs-uwm
- Markdown
- [RWM against UWM (ETFIQ, Sep 30, 2026)](https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/rwm-vs-uwm)