Which came closer to its stated multiple, SMN or UYM?

Over the window to Sep 30, 2026, SMN finished 0.4 points from what its multiple implies and UYM finished 2.7 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 State Street Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF, 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.

Share on X Download as PDF Open live

SMN vs UYM: which held to its multiple?

Over three months against its own daily promise, SMN finished 2.2 points over and UYM 2.2 points short. ProShares UltraShort Materials and ProShares Ultra Materials.

+8.6%

SMN returned, 3 months

−10.9%

UYM returned, 3 months

+0.4 pts

SMN from its stated multiple

−2.7 pts

UYM from its stated multiple

SMN · 3 months to Sep 30, 2026On its stated multiple

SMN returned +8.6% while −2 times XLB's move would have been +8.2%

UYM · 3 months to Sep 30, 20262.7 pts short of its stated multiple

UYM returned −10.9% while 2 times XLB's move would have been −8.2%

ETFIQ Decay Resistance Score · SMN scores higherDid it keep up with its own daily multiple, compounded day by day?

SMN among the 125 inverse ETFs over three months

SMN 69.2

0.4, the lowest in this set99.6, the highest

UYM among the 470 leveraged ETFs, long, over three months

UYM 63.3

0.1, the lowest in this set99.9, the highest

A percentile among the 125 inverse ETFs over three months. UYM 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	SMN	UYM	SMN	UYM	SMN	UYM
1 month	+15.9%	−15.2%	+14.3%	−14.3%	+1.6 pts	−0.9 pts
3 months	+8.6%	−10.9%	+8.2%	−8.2%	+0.4 pts	−2.7 pts
6 months	+5.0%	−10.3%	+5.4%	−5.4%	−0.4 pts	−5.0 pts
1 year	−18.2%	+11.2%	−21.3%	+21.3%	+3.1 pts	−10.1 pts
3 years	−37.5%	+28.2%	−62.6%	+62.6%	+25.1 pts	−34.3 pts
Since launch SMN Jan 2010 · UYM Jan 2010	−99.0%	+258.5%	not meaningful	not meaningful	not meaningful	not meaningful

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

On the same fields

SMN

ProShares UltraShort Materials · Aims to return twice the opposite of the daily move of State Street Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLB)

UYM

ProShares Ultra Materials · Aims to return twice the daily move of State Street Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLB)

Issuer ProShares ProShares

Sets out to return -2x +2x

Underlying asset XLB XLB

Segment sector sector

Fund returned, 3 months or since launch +8.6% −10.9%

Underlying returned, over that window −4.1% −4.1%

What the stated multiple implies, over that window +8.2% −8.2%

Difference from stated, over that window +0.4 pts −2.7 pts

Fund returned, 1 year or since launch −18.2% +11.2%

Difference from stated, over that window +3.1 pts −10.1 pts

Underlying volatility 17% 17%

Difference over the days both have traded no shared window −2.7 pts

Expense ratio 0.95% 0.95%

Launched Jan 4, 2010 Jan 4, 2010

Net assets $4m $34m

SMN and UYM on the same fields, as of Sep 30, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.

SMN in plain words

Three months to Sep 30, 2026: SMN returned +8.6% where its own daily promise gave +6.4%, 2.2 points over. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and −2 times XLB's −4.1% implies +8.2%, which makes SMN look 0.4 points over. 1.8 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 30, 2026: UYM returned −10.9% where its own daily promise gave −8.7%, 2.2 points short. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and 2 times XLB's −4.1% implies −8.2%, which makes UYM look 2.7 points short. 0.5 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 30, 2026, SMN finished 0.4 points from what its multiple implies and UYM finished 2.7 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 State Street Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF, 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

SMN vs XLBX UYM vs XLBX

XLB →SMN on its own →UYM on its own →How every figure is computed →Standards and sources →

Where these figures came from

SMN and UYM filings on SEC EDGAR ↗SMN and UYM prospectus with the expense ratio (SEC) ↗ProShares page for SMN ↗ProShares page for UYM ↗

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.

Cite this page

ETFIQ, SMN against UYM, data as of Sep 30, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/leverage/smn-vs-uym

Open data

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