© 2026 Sparkline Capital LP. All rights reserved.

For informational purposes only. Not investment advice or a recommendation of any security or fund. Past performance is not indicative of future results.

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Disclosures | Methodology |

ANALYTICS
AnalysisScreenerGroups

Selection

Selected (1/4)

UDOW

Seeded with the selected fund at 100%

Benchmark

Pick one fund or composite — returns and exposures render in excess of it

Peer Universe

Reference set for percentile ranks and factor bars

Leveraged Funds · 749 total

ANALYTICS
AnalysisScreenerGroups

UDOW

Leveraged

ProShares UltraPro Dow30

Expense Ratio
0.94%
AUM
$833M
Inception
2/12/2010
1Y Return
+19.0%67th %ilevs 749 asset-class peers
·

The fund invests in financial instruments that ProShare Advisors believes, in combination, should produce daily returns consistent with the Daily Target. The index is designed to measure the performance of some of the largest U.S. companies. Under normal circumstances, the fund will obtain leveraged exposure to at least 80% of its total assets in components of the index or in instruments with similar economic characteristics. The fund is non-diversified.

Time Series
–

Performance

NameCumulative ReturnAnn. ReturnAnn. VolSharpeMax DD
UDOW
ProShares UltraPro Dow30
19.0%19.0%38.1%0.40-28.1%
ⓘ Methodology

ETF performance based on market prices. Drag on chart to select period. Sharpe Ratio uses the one-month T-bill as the risk-free rate. From 10/7/2025 to 10/7/2026.

Trailing Returns

Name
YTD1D5D1M3M6M1Y2Y3Y5YMAX
UDOW
ProShares UltraPro Dow30
10.9%-2.1%1.2%-12.8%-11.9%25.6%19.0%18.3%35.5%12.6%25.3%
ⓘ Methodology

ETF performance based on market prices. Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized. As of 10/7/2026.

Annual Returns

Name
2010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025YTD
UDOW
ProShares UltraPro Dow30
51.2%*9.2%26.4%107.1%26.0%-8.6%47.5%99.1%-23.9%75.2%-17.1%66.5%-32.8%32.7%28.5%24.5%10.9%
ⓘ Methodology

* partial year — the series ran for only part of it (its first year, or the year it closed); the figure is the return over the part it did run. ETF performance based on market prices. As of 10/7/2026.

Correlation Matrix

Benchmark

Select a second series, or to correlate with the seven research factors.

Factor Regression

Name
Ann. αβ MKTβ SMBβ HMLβ RMWβ CMAβ UMDβ iHMLR²Obs
UDOWUS
ProShares UltraPro Dow30
1.6%2.96**0.250.36**0.31**0.59**-0.25**-0.20*0.81226
ⓘ Methodology

ETF performance based on market prices. US factor set. Daily OLS of excess return (fund − T-bill) on factor spread returns over the selected date range, intersected with each series' history. Bold with * |t| ≥ 1.96, ** |t| ≥ 2.58. Cell shading tracks each loading's t-stat. Betas are returns-based — compare with the holdings-based factor scores below. Factor returns are long-short spread returns (© Ken French, Dartmouth). From 10/7/2025 to 8/31/2026.

SnapshotAs ofvsⓘ

Fund ProfileLeveraged

Fund Documents(opens the fund company’s site in a new tab)
Family
Registrant
Type
ETF
Asset Class
Peer Asset Class
Leveraged
Region
Equity Size & Style
Prospectus Benchmark
Dow Jones Industrial Average℠ Index
Peer Group
Leveraged - Equity (703 peers)
1Y Peer Percentile
64
3Y Peer Percentile
74
Expense Ratio
0.94%
AUM
$833M
3Y Flow
-74.1%
Yield
1.11%
Inception
2/12/2010
Holdings (Reported)
49
Turnover
0%
Equity
65%
Derivatives
13%
Net Equity Exposure
294%
Strategy Summary

The fund invests in financial instruments that ProShare Advisors believes, in combination, should produce daily returns consistent with the Daily Target. The index is designed to measure the performance of some of the largest U.S. companies. Under normal circumstances, the fund will obtain leveraged exposure to at least 80% of its total assets in components of the index or in instruments with similar economic characteristics. The fund is non-diversified.

ⓘ Methodology

Expense ratio and its components from the SEC annual shareholder report (8/6/2026). Turnover from the SEC annual report (8/6/2026). Yield as of 10/6/2026, AUM 9/30/2026. Holdings, asset class, style, peer group and exposures as of 5/31/2026. Summary may be from an older prospectus.

Equity Size & Style Map

Based on equity exposure only (52% of total assets).

LargeMidSmall
17%
49%
33%
-
1%
-
-
-
-
Large
ValueCoreGrowth
Size
Large
99%
Mid
1%
Small
0%
Style
Value
17%
Core
50%
Growth
33%
ⓘ Methodology

Equity size and style definitions: Large vs. Small based on market cap, where Large > $70B, Mid $10-70B, and Small < $10B. Value vs. Growth based on percentile ranking on Traditional Value score within the fund's region and size cohort (equal thirds among its true equity-fund peers). Cell shading and percentages: share of classified holdings weight per box, from stock-level classification (size on the same $70B/$10B lines; value by Traditional Value terciles across scored stocks). The dot is the average holding ranked against other funds, so dot and weights can differ at the margin. The Size and Style bars are the grid's row and column totals. Holdings as of 5/31/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.

Composite FactorsRef: Leveraged Funds

Based on equity exposure only (52% of total assets).

Intangible Value94.6
Traditional Value39.9
Small-Cap2.4
Quality90.7
Momentum36.3
ⓘ Methodology

Hover or click for factor definitions. Weighted average of underlying company-level values with weights equal to position size. Ranked within the clean equity fund universe, one entry per fund series (lowest: 0, highest: 100; the middle of the range is denser than the ends). Blue dots mark the fund; the shaded band spans the Leveraged Funds class 25th–75th percentile of scores, notched at the median. Holdings as of 5/31/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.

Factor DetailsRef: Leveraged Funds

Based on equity exposure only (52% of total assets).

Valuation
Book-to-Price (NTM)18.5
Sales-to-Price (NTM)33.3
Earnings-to-Price (NTM)4.9
Innovation/IP
R&D / Mkt Cap2.1
Patents / Mkt Cap1.3
Brand
Sales & Marketing / Mkt Cap1.3
Trademarks / Mkt Cap0.07
Human Capital
PhD Employees / Mkt Cap4.1
Top University Alumni / Mkt Cap13.7
Politics
Lobbying Spend / Mkt Cap21.3
AI
AI Employees / Mkt Cap1.4
ⓘ Methodology

Hover or click for factor definitions. Weighted average of underlying company-level values with weights equal to position size. Solid blue dots mark the fund's position within the clean equity fund universe (5th–95th percentile scale); the shaded band spans the fund's broad class (Leveraged Funds) 25th–75th percentile, notched at the median. Holdings as of 5/31/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026. Expense ratio, yield, and turnover as of 10/6/2026. AUM as of 9/30/2026.

Country Exposure

Level
100.0%
100.0%
ⓘ Methodology

Shares are percentages of the holdings that carry a country, not portfolio weights. Holdings as of 5/31/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.

Sector Exposure

Level

Based on equity exposure only (52% of total assets).

28.8%
19.1%
14.4%
13.5%
11.7%
4.3%
3.9%
2.3%
1.9%
ⓘ Methodology

Shares are percentages of the fund's classified holdings — every position we can identify, with cash and unidentified positions excluded — not portfolio weights. Holdings as of 5/31/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.

Thematic Exposure

Based on equity exposure only (52% of total assets).

AI Composition

Infrastructure10.1%
Early Adopter75.3%
Laggard14.6%

Magnificent 7

Magnificent 710.1%
Non-Magnificent 789.9%

Old vs New Economy

Old Economy63.9%
New Economy36.1%

Globalization

Multinational63.3%
Exporter5.4%
Importer16.8%
Domestic14.5%

China Exposure

China/HK Domiciled0.0%
Revenue & Operations5.9%
Operations Only12.6%
Revenue Only0.0%
No Material Exposure81.5%

Company Size

Mega (>$500B)22.5%
Large ($70–500B)73.9%
Mid ($10–70B)3.6%
Small ($1–10B)0.0%
Micro (<$1B)0.0%
ⓘ Methodology

Shares are percentages of the fund's classified equity book, renormalized so each split sums to 100% (the equity book is 65% of net assets) — they are not portfolio weights. China exposure: domiciled = incorporated in China or Hong Kong, falling back to the filing's country for holdings outside the stock model. Among the rest, revenue = ≥15% of revenue derived from China; operations = ≥3% of LinkedIn-tracked workforce in China, or ≥2 identified Chinese suppliers making up ≥12% of those identified. China revenue is estimated where segment reporting is absent. Company size bands by holding market cap: Mega >$500B, Large $70–500B, Mid $10–70B, Small $1–10B, Micro <$1B. Old vs New Economy partitions Sparkline's 48 industries: New = technology, internet platforms and entertainment, e-commerce, payments, pharma/biotech/medtech, and renewable energy; Old = everything else. Shares are of classified holdings and sum to 100%. China shares are of total equity weight. Size shares are of scored holdings weight. Holdings as of 5/31/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.

Holdings

See more rows — create a free account▾

44 positions (top 10 shown, create for full holdings) · 17.9% in funds

#NameTickerWeight %SectorIndustryCountry
1ProShares GENIUS Money Market ETFIQMM
17.89
--USA
2Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The)GS
6.80
FinancialsInvest BankingUSA
3United States of America-
6.01
--USA
4CaterpillarCAT
5.81
IndustrialsHeavy MachineryUSA
5--
3.18
--USA
6MicrosoftMSFT
2.99
TechnologySoftwareUSA
7U.S. Treasury Bills-
2.97
--USA
8--
2.62
--USA
9UnitedHealth GroupUNH
2.52
HealthcareInsurers & ProvidersUSA
10AmgenAMGN
2.23
HealthcareBiotech & Life SciUSA
ⓘ Methodology

Sector, country and factor detail need a security match; the share of weight that matched is a member figure, so the rows without one appear here with those columns blank. "In funds" adds up the rows tagged Fund — holdings that are themselves funds this app covers, which is what look-through can expand; a held vehicle that files no holdings of its own (a commodity or currency trust, a money-market fund) is not counted and stays a single line. Holdings as of 5/31/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.

ConcentrationRef: Leveraged Funds

Total Holdings49
Effective Holdings17.9
Top 10 Weight53.0%
Max Position17.9%
Top Sector (of Net Assets)45%
Top Country (of Net Assets)100%
ⓘ Methodology

Hover or click for definitions. Solid blue dots mark the fund: percentage rows on a 0–100% scale, holdings counts log-scaled across the clean-universe 5th–95th percentile range. The shaded band spans the fund's broad class (Leveraged Funds) 25th–75th percentile, notched at the median. Holdings as of 5/31/2026.

Benchmark DifferentiationRef: Leveraged Funds

vs SPYBroad Benchmark
Active Share79.9%
ⓘ Methodology

One sub-card per benchmark: the market primary, then the style secondary — the gap between them is the style sleeve itself. Both anchors are Sparkline-inferred (market from asset class and region, style from the holdings size-and-style map), not the fund's official prospectus benchmark. Solid blue dot marks the fund; the shaded band spans the reference set's 25th–75th percentile, notched at the median (band follows the Peer Universe selector). Active Share compares the fund's book with the benchmark's, share for share; Tracking Error is the annualized daily deviation over the trailing two years (ruler runs to just past the universe's 95th percentile, or past the fund's own figure where that is larger); Benchmark Correlation is the plain daily correlation over the trailing year. Hover the labels for full definitions.

Peer Group Rank

See All Peer Groups
Metric
UDOW
ProShares UltraPro Dow30
Peer Group
703 funds
Peer Asset Class
749 funds
YTD Return
10.93%-10.30%69-10.88%70
1Y Return
18.96%7.47%64-0.94%67
3Y Return (Ann.)
35.50%24.82%7424.24%74
5Y Return (Ann.)
12.61%7.34%716.79%69
Expense Ratiohigher = cheaper
0.94%0.99%630.99%65
ⓘ Methodology

Sparkline's own holdings-based peer taxonomy (768 share classes across 703 funds). One share class shown per fund — the exchange-listed class where the SEC series has one, else its longest-history class; percentile ranks and medians are computed against the same deduped set. Quartile chips fill the layer the fund's rank falls in (top layer = best quartile). Funds without a full return history rank only on the horizons they cover.

Similar Funds

See more rows — create a free account▾

Nearest funds across the whole universe, by holdings and behavior — the peer taxonomy is ignored, so matches can come from any category.

Top Similarity73
Top Overlap
Top Active Tilt
Top Factor Match
Top Return Corr
Top FF Match
FundPeer Group
1UDPIX
ULTRA DOW 30 PROFUND
Leveraged - Equity
Leveraged - Equity
73-----
2RYCVX
Dow 2x Strategy Fund
Leveraged - Equity
Leveraged - Equity
71-----
3DDM
ProShares Ultra Dow30
Leveraged - Equity
Leveraged - Equity
59-----
4DIA
SPDR DOW JONES INDUSTRIAL AVERAGE ETF TRUST
US Large Core
US Large Core
59-----
5RYDAX
Dow Jones Industrial Average Fund
US Large Core
US Large Core
59-----
6DYLG
Global X Dow 30 Covered Call & Growth ETF
Options - Income
Options - Income
59-----
7EDOW
First Trust Dow 30 Equal Weight ETF
US Large Core
US Large Core
59-----
8DJD
Invesco Dow Jones Industrial Average Dividend ETF
US Large Value
US Large Value
52-----
9UPRO
ProShares UltraPro S&P500
Leveraged - Equity
Leveraged - Equity
38-----
10DJIA
Global X Dow 30 Covered Call ETF
Options - Income
Options - Income
38-----

The method columns are members-only — create a free account to see these figures.

ⓘ Methodology

Rows are the consensus top matches (a fund must place in at least two methods' top 250 to qualify, and matches missing more than one of this fund's own methods are not ranked — a row scored on fewer methods is a noisier estimate, not a better match). Click a method column to see that method's own top matches across the whole universe instead. Gray (N) beside each method's metric is that fund's rank in the whole universe on that method. Similarity is a percentile among match-grade fund pairs, 0–100 — 87 means the pair is closer than 87% of the strongest matches in the universe, averaged across the methods — so it compares across funds: index clones tie at the top with thousands of other clone pairs, so scores top out in the high 80s to 90s, while a one-of-a-kind fund's best match can score in the 30s. Rows are ordered by the Consensus Rank — the geometric mean of those universe ranks, shown in each cell's tooltip — and the score is held down the list to the level of the closest match above it, so equal scores mean equally close and the number reads as a floor. A dash means that method has no figure for the pair at all (one of them lacks the holdings or return history it needs). Hover a column header for each method's definition. The “Top…” strips above compare against every fund's own top match across the whole universe (they deliberately don't follow the Peer Universe selector); Top Similarity is simply the best match's score, with no reference band; the Holdings and Active Tilt strips carry no reference band because computing every fund's best book overlap would require a full holdings scan per fund — the dot stands alone on its natural 0–100% scale. One share class shown per fund, and a fund's own sister share classes are excluded from its Top-match strips. Holdings as of 5/31/2026. Consensus Rank is the geometric mean of the match's universe-wide rank across the methods (#1.0 = top match on every one). Holdings Overlap = common-holdings weight (sum of the minimum weight across shared positions, long only). Active Tilt Overlap = the same statistic on active weights (holdings minus the fund's own default benchmark, floored at 0), which strips the benchmark ballast that dominates raw overlap. Factor Similarity = 100 − a signature-weighted RMS gap across the composite factor scores (0–100 ranks within the clean equity fund universe), each axis weighted by how far this fund sits from the universe median of 50. Return Correlation = correlation of market-hedged daily returns over the trailing two years (CAPM residuals), so only market-beta co-movement is removed; requires ~18 months of daily history (378 of the window's 504 trading days). Fama-French Similarity = 1/(1+d), where d is the Euclidean distance between factor betas (market, size, value, profitability, investment, momentum, intangible value) from up to three years of daily returns (min 378 daily observations and regression R² of at least 0.25); 1.00 = identical loadings.