Which came closer to its stated multiple, TWM or URTY?

Over the window to Sep 30, 2026, TWM finished 3.0 points from what its multiple implies and URTY finished 1.6 points from its own, so URTY came closer. Neither figure predicts the next window: it depends on how much the underlying moves about.

Are TWM and URTY levered on the same thing?

Yes. Both are levered on the Russell 2000, TWM at -2 times and URTY at +3 times the daily move.

Which one decays faster, TWM or URTY?

Decay follows how much the underlying moves about. Over this window TWM’s moved at 13% annualized and URTY’s at 13%, so TWM has the rougher ride and, at the same multiple, loses more to compounding.

Can I hold TWM or URTY 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, TWM or URTY?

TWM charges 0.95% a year and URTY charges 0.95%, so TWM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.

Share on X Download as PDF Open live

TWM vs URTY: which held to its multiple?

Over three months against its own daily promise, TWM finished 3.0 points over and URTY 1.9 points short. ProShares UltraShort Russell2000 and ProShares UltraPro Russell2000.

+16.9%

TWM returned, 3 months

−22.3%

URTY returned, 3 months

+3.0 pts

TWM from its stated multiple

−1.6 pts

URTY from its stated multiple

TWM · 3 months to Sep 30, 20263 pts ahead of its stated multiple

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

URTY · 3 months to Sep 30, 20261.6 pts short of its stated multiple

URTY returned −22.3% while 3 times IWM's move would have been −20.8%

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

TWM among the 125 inverse ETFs over three months

TWM 82

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

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

URTY 70.5

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

A percentile among the 125 inverse ETFs over three months. URTY 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	TWM	URTY	TWM	URTY	TWM	URTY
1 month	+11.9%	−15.8%	+10.4%	−15.6%	+1.5 pts	−0.1 pts
3 months	+16.9%	−22.3%	+13.8%	−20.8%	+3.0 pts	−1.6 pts
6 months	−19.5%	+28.2%	−23.8%	+35.7%	+4.3 pts	−7.5 pts
1 year	−26.1%	+27.7%	−32.0%	+48.1%	+6.0 pts	−20.4 pts
3 years	−64.3%	+104.5%	−125.2%	+187.7%	+60.8 pts	−83.3 pts
Since launch TWM Jan 2010 · URTY Feb 2010	−99.6%	+572.8%	not meaningful	not meaningful	not meaningful	not meaningful

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

On the same fields

TWM

ProShares UltraShort Russell2000 · Aims to return twice the opposite of the daily move of the Russell 2000

URTY

ProShares UltraPro Russell2000 · Aims to return three times the daily move of the Russell 2000

Issuer ProShares ProShares

Sets out to return -2x +3x

Underlying asset IWM IWM

Segment us small cap us small cap

Fund returned, 3 months or since launch +16.9% −22.3%

Underlying returned, over that window −6.9% −6.9%

What the stated multiple implies, over that window +13.8% −20.8%

Difference from stated, over that window +3.0 pts −1.6 pts

Fund returned, 1 year or since launch −26.1% +27.7%

Difference from stated, over that window +6.0 pts −20.4 pts

Underlying volatility 13% 13%

Difference over the days both have traded no shared window −1.6 pts

Expense ratio 0.95% 0.95%

Launched Jan 4, 2010 Feb 11, 2010

Net assets $66m $271m

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

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 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. 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.

URTY in plain words

Three months to Sep 30, 2026: URTY returned −22.3% where its own daily promise gave −20.4%, 1.9 points short. Read the multiple against the whole window instead and 3 times IWM's −6.9% implies −20.8%, which makes URTY look 1.6 points short. 0.4 of that is daily compounding, which happens to any 3 times fund over the same path, and the rest is the fund. URTY aims to return +3 times IWM's move each day, then resets. Over longer, the daily results compound, so the total is not +3 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, TWM or URTY?: Over the window to Sep 30, 2026, TWM finished 3.0 points from what its multiple implies and URTY finished 1.6 points from its own, so URTY came closer. Neither figure predicts the next window: it depends on how much the underlying moves about.
Are TWM and URTY levered on the same thing?: Yes. Both are levered on the Russell 2000, TWM at -2 times and URTY at +3 times the daily move.
Which one decays faster, TWM or URTY?: Decay follows how much the underlying moves about. Over this window TWM’s moved at 13% annualized and URTY’s at 13%, so TWM has the rougher ride and, at the same multiple, loses more to compounding.
Can I hold TWM or URTY 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, TWM or URTY?: TWM charges 0.95% a year and URTY charges 0.95%, so TWM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.

Other comparisons

TWM vs TZA TWM vs RWM TWM vs SRTY TWM vs TNA URTY vs RWM URTY vs UWM URTY vs SRTY URTY vs TNA

IWM →TWM on its own →URTY on its own →How every figure is computed →Standards and sources →

Where these figures came from

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

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

Open data

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