AMUB vs. IFED

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

AMUB (ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B) and IFED (ETRACS IFED Invest with the Fed TR Index ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - AMUB is a MLPs fund tracking the Alerian MLP Index, while IFED is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the IFED Large-Cap US Equity Index - Benchmark TR Gross. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, AMUB returned 14.71%/yr vs 16.56%/yr for IFED. At a 0.45 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. AMUB charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for IFED.

Performance

AMUB vs. IFED - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B (AMUB) and ETRACS IFED Invest with the Fed TR Index ETN (IFED). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AMUB achieves a 11.87% return, which is significantly higher than IFED's -3.02% return.

AMUB

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: -9.67%
• YTD: 11.87%
• 6M: 11.94%
• 1Y: 10.22%
• 3Y*: 14.71%
• 5Y*: 11.11%
• 10Y*: 2.59%

IFED

• 1D: 0.11%
• 1M: 2.53%
• YTD: -3.02%
• 6M: -4.18%
• 1Y: 3.33%
• 3Y*: 16.56%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

AMUB vs. IFED - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
AMUB ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B	11.87%	2.05%	15.68%	16.89%	21.91%	0.38%
IFED ETRACS IFED Invest with the Fed TR Index ETN	-3.02%	15.02%	23.04%	20.78%	-1.46%	8.46%

Correlation

The correlation between AMUB and IFED is 0.03, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.03
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.30
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 15, 2021	0.45

Over the past year, the correlation between AMUB and IFED has dropped to 0.03 - well below their long-term average of 0.45, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

Return for Risk

AMUB vs. IFED — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

AMUB

AMUB Risk / Return Rank: 21
AMUB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
AMUB Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
AMUB Omega Ratio Rank: 20
AMUB Calmar Ratio Rank: 21
AMUB Martin Ratio Rank: 22

IFED

IFED Risk / Return Rank: 11
IFED Sharpe Ratio Rank: 11
IFED Sortino Ratio Rank: 11
IFED Omega Ratio Rank: 10
IFED Calmar Ratio Rank: 11
IFED Martin Ratio Rank: 11

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

AMUB vs. IFED - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B (AMUB) and ETRACS IFED Invest with the Fed TR Index ETN (IFED). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	AMUB	IFED	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.75	0.20	+0.55
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.12	0.41	+0.71
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	1.05	+0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.96	0.23	+0.74
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.64	0.57	+2.07

AMUB vs. IFED - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AMUB Sharpe Ratio is 0.75, which is higher than the IFED Sharpe Ratio of 0.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AMUB and IFED, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

AMUB vs. IFED - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AMUB drawdown since its inception was -79.46%, which is greater than IFED's maximum drawdown of -22.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AMUB and IFED.

Drawdown Indicators

	AMUB	IFED	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-79.46%	-22.36%	-57.10%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.69%	-14.65%	+3.96%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.22%	-22.36%	+5.14%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.58%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-78.86%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.25%	-5.00%	-5.25%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-29.12%	-5.83%	-23.29%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.89%	5.87%	-1.98%

Volatility

AMUB vs. IFED - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B (AMUB) is 4.72%, while ETRACS IFED Invest with the Fed TR Index ETN (IFED) has a volatility of 6.74%. This indicates that AMUB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IFED based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AMUB	IFED	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.72%	6.74%	-2.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.95%	13.82%	-3.87%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.75%	16.87%	-3.12%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.11%	19.92%	+0.19%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.12%	19.92%	+7.20%

AMUB vs. IFED - Expense Ratio Comparison

AMUB has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is higher than IFED's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

AMUB vs. IFED - Dividend Comparison

Neither AMUB nor IFED has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AMUB and IFED in my portfolio?

AMUB and IFED have a correlation of 0.03, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AMUB or IFED?

IFED has higher volatility (6.74%) compared to AMUB (4.72%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AMUB dropped -79.46% vs IFED's -22.36%.

Which ETF is better, AMUB or IFED?

On 3-year performance, IFED leads with 16.56% vs 14.71% for AMUB. On fees, IFED is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, AMUB has been the lower-risk option at 4.72%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AMUB or IFED?

Over the 3-year period, IFED has performed better with a 16.56% return vs 14.71%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AMUB or IFED?

IFED is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for AMUB.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AMUB or IFED?

AMUB and IFED have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between AMUB and IFED?

AMUB is categorized as MLPs, while IFED is Leveraged Equities. AMUB tracks Alerian MLP Index, while IFED tracks IFED Large-Cap US Equity Index - Benchmark TR Gross. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for AMUB and 0.45% for IFED.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

AMUB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.75 vs 0.20), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.