URTY vs UWM: which held to its multiple?

Over three months against its own daily promise, URTY finished 1.9 points short and UWM 1.1 points short. ProShares UltraPro Russell2000 and ProShares Ultra Russell2000.

−22.3%
URTY returned, 3 months
−14.9%
UWM returned, 3 months
−1.6 pts
URTY from its stated multiple
−1.0 pts
UWM from its stated multiple
URTY · 3 months to Sep 30, 20261.6 pts short of its stated multiple
1.6 pts short of its stated multipleURTY returned −22.3% while 3 times IWM's move would have been −20.8%IWM −6.9% ×3 implies−20.8%URTY returned−22.3%1.6 pts short of its stated multipleURTY returned −22.3% while 3 times IWM's move would have been −20.8%IWM −6.9% ×3 implies−20.8%URTY returned−22.3%

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

UWM · 3 months to Sep 30, 20261 pt short of its stated multiple
1 pt short of its stated multipleUWM returned −14.9% while 2 times IWM's move would have been −13.8%IWM −6.9% ×2 implies−13.8%UWM returned−14.9%1 pt short of its stated multipleUWM returned −14.9% while 2 times IWM's move would have been −13.8%IWM −6.9% ×2 implies−13.8%UWM returned−14.9%

UWM returned −14.9% while 2 times IWM's move would have been −13.8%

ETFIQ Decay Resistance Score · UWM scores higherDid it keep up with its own daily multiple, compounded day by day?
0.1, the lowest in this set99.9, the highest

A percentile among the 470 leveraged ETFs, long, 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
WindowURTYUWMURTYUWMURTYUWM
1 month−15.8%−10.6%−15.6%−10.4%−0.1 pts−0.1 pts
3 months−22.3%−14.9%−20.8%−13.8%−1.6 pts−1.0 pts
6 months+28.2%+20.4%+35.7%+23.8%−7.5 pts−3.4 pts
1 year+27.7%+23.5%+48.1%+32.0%−20.4 pts−8.6 pts
3 years+104.5%+93.6%+187.7%+125.2%−83.3 pts−31.5 pts
Since launch
URTY Feb 2010 · UWM Jan 2010
+572.8%+705.0%not meaningfulnot meaningfulnot meaningfulnot meaningful

URTY 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

URTY
ProShares UltraPro Russell2000 · Aims to return three times the daily move of the Russell 2000
UWM
ProShares Ultra Russell2000 · Aims to return twice the daily move of the Russell 2000
Issuer ProShares ProShares
Sets out to return +3x +2x
Underlying asset IWM IWM
Segment us small cap us small cap
Fund returned, 3 months or since launch −22.3% −14.9%
Underlying returned, over that window −6.9% −6.9%
What the stated multiple implies, over that window −20.8% −13.8%
Difference from stated, over that window −1.6 pts −1.0 pts
Fund returned, 1 year or since launch +27.7% +23.5%
Difference from stated, over that window −20.4 pts −8.6 pts
Underlying volatility 13% 13%
Difference over the days both have traded −1.6 pts no shared window
Expense ratio 0.95% 0.95%
Launched Feb 11, 2010 Jan 4, 2010
Net assets $271m $221m

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

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 one day it does that. 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. 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, URTY or UWM?
Over the window to Sep 30, 2026, URTY finished 1.6 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 URTY and UWM levered on the same thing?
Yes. Both are levered on the Russell 2000, URTY at +3 times and UWM at +2 times the daily move.
Which one decays faster, URTY or UWM?
Decay follows how much the underlying moves about. Over this window URTY’s moved at 13% annualized and UWM’s at 13%, so URTY has the rougher ride and, at the same multiple, loses more to compounding.
Can I hold URTY 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.
Which is cheaper, URTY or UWM?
URTY charges 0.95% a year and UWM charges 0.95%, so URTY is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Cite this page

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

Open data

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