RWM vs VTI
ProShares Short Russell2000 vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Quick Verdict
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI delivered stronger 1-year returns. VTI offers more diversification with 3,543 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | RWM | VTI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.95% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $108M | $666.9B | |
| Dividend Yield | 3.74% | 1.07% | |
| Holdings | 10 | 3,543 | |
| YTD Return | -15.64% | +12.79% | |
| 1Y Return | -20.62% | +20.47% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | -13.49% | +21.53% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -6.32% | +11.84% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 20.9% | 15.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -96.9% | -56.6% | |
| Fund Family | ProShares | Vanguard (US) | |
| Category | Alternative | Equity | |
| Inception | Jan 23, 2007 | May 24, 2001 |
RWM vs VTI Performance
ProShares Short Russell2000 (RWM) is a ETF from ProShares and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is a ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year RWM returned -20.62% while VTI returned +20.47%. Year to date, RWM is down 15.64% versus a gain of 12.79% for VTI.
Over three years, RWM compounded at -13.49% per year against +21.53% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are -6.32% and +11.84% respectively. Across the full 20-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +8.07% annualized vs -13.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
RWM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 20.9% compared with 15.3% for VTI. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -96.9% for RWM and -56.6% for VTI. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at -0.86. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
RWM charges 0.95% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $95 vs $3 annually, a gap of $92 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, RWM currently yields 3.74% against 1.07% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
RWM and VTI share 0 holdings out of 2788 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, RWM or VTI?
RWM has an expense ratio of 0.95% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $92 per year of difference.
Which performed better, RWM or VTI?
Over the past year RWM returned -20.62% vs +20.47% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (20 years), RWM annualized -13.76% vs +8.07% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, RWM or VTI?
RWM has been the more volatile fund at 20.9% annualized versus 15.3% for VTI. Worst drawdown: RWM -96.9% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both RWM and VTI?
RWM and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of -0.86, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between RWM and VTI?
RWM and VTI share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 2788 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, RWM or VTI?
RWM yields 3.74% while VTI yields 1.07%, so RWM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.