UWM vs VTI
ProShares Ultra Russell2000 vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Quick Verdict
VTI has a lower expense ratio. UWM delivered stronger 1-year returns. VTI offers more diversification with 3,543 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | UWM | VTI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.95% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $252M | $666.9B | |
| Dividend Yield | 0.84% | 1.07% | |
| Holdings | 1,994 | 3,543 | |
| YTD Return | +38.64% | +13.14% | |
| 1Y Return | +64.29% | +22.35% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +27.47% | +21.83% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +4.65% | +12.01% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 41.1% | 15.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -88.5% | -56.6% | |
| Fund Family | ProShares | Vanguard (US) | |
| Category | Alternative | Equity | |
| Inception | Jan 23, 2007 | May 24, 2001 |
UWM vs VTI Performance
ProShares Ultra Russell2000 (UWM) is a ETF from ProShares and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is a ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year UWM returned +64.29% while VTI returned +22.35%. Year to date, UWM is up 38.64% versus a gain of 13.14% for VTI.
Over three years, UWM compounded at +27.47% per year against +21.83% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +4.65% and +12.01% respectively. Across the full 20-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +8.09% annualized vs +7.13%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
UWM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 41.1% 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 -88.5% for UWM 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 0.91. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
UWM 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, UWM currently yields 0.84% against 1.07% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
UWM and VTI share 1410 holdings out of 3343 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.4% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, UWM or VTI?
UWM 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, UWM or VTI?
Over the past year UWM returned +64.29% vs +22.35% for VTI, so UWM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (20 years), UWM annualized +7.13% vs +8.09% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, UWM or VTI?
UWM has been the more volatile fund at 41.1% annualized versus 15.3% for VTI. Worst drawdown: UWM -88.5% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both UWM and VTI?
UWM and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.91, so they move almost identically. Holding both adds little diversification - most investors pick one, usually on fees or the specific index tracked.
What is the holdings overlap between UWM and VTI?
UWM and VTI share 1410 common holdings with a 0.4% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 3343 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, UWM or VTI?
UWM yields 0.84% while VTI yields 1.07%, so VTI 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.