AMUB vs. IWFL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

AMUB (ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B) and IWFL (ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - AMUB is a MLPs fund tracking the Alerian MLP Index, while IWFL is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth (200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, AMUB returned 12.34%/yr vs 20.43%/yr for IWFL. At a 0.28 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. AMUB charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for IWFL.

Performance

AMUB vs. IWFL - 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 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN (IWFL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AMUB achieves a 16.97% return, which is significantly higher than IWFL's 12.54% return.

AMUB

• 1D: -0.23%
• 1M: -2.08%
• YTD: 16.97%
• 6M: 15.25%
• 1Y: 15.77%
• 3Y*: 15.80%
• 5Y*: 12.34%
• 10Y*: 3.05%

IWFL

• 1D: -0.80%
• 1M: 12.28%
• YTD: 12.54%
• 6M: 10.59%
• 1Y: 48.76%
• 3Y*: 39.45%
• 5Y*: 20.43%
• 10Y*: —

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

AMUB vs. IWFL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
AMUB ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B	16.97%	2.05%	15.68%	16.89%	21.91%	17.20%
IWFL ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN	12.54%	18.54%	61.94%	84.47%	-55.71%	46.03%

Correlation

The correlation between AMUB and IWFL is -0.09, 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	-0.09
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.16
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.28
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 8, 2021	0.28

The correlation between AMUB and IWFL shifts across timeframes, from -0.09 (1 year) to 0.28 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

AMUB vs. IWFL — Risk / Return Rank

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

AMUB

AMUB Risk / Return Rank: 31
AMUB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 32
AMUB Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
AMUB Omega Ratio Rank: 30
AMUB Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
AMUB Martin Ratio Rank: 31

IWFL

IWFL Risk / Return Rank: 37
IWFL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
IWFL Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
IWFL Omega Ratio Rank: 40
IWFL Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
IWFL Martin Ratio Rank: 32

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. IWFL - 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 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN (IWFL). 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.

	AMUB	IWFL	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.18	1.53	-0.36
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.69	2.01	-0.33
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.27	-0.06
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.53	1.52	+0.01
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	4.52	4.86	-0.34
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AMUB vs. IWFL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AMUB Sharpe Ratio is 1.18, which is comparable to the IWFL Sharpe Ratio of 1.53. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AMUB and IWFL, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	AMUB	IWFL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.18	1.53	-0.36
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.61	0.44	+0.17
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.11	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.00	0.42	-0.42

Drawdowns

AMUB vs. IWFL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AMUB drawdown since its inception was -79.46%, which is greater than IWFL's maximum drawdown of -59.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AMUB and IWFL.

Drawdown Indicators

	AMUB	IWFL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-79.46%	-59.29%	-20.17%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.37%	-32.80%	+22.43%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.22%	-46.84%	+29.62%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.58%	-59.29%	+38.71%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-78.86%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.15%	-0.80%	-5.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-29.23%	-19.95%	-9.28%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.51%	10.28%	-6.77%

Volatility

AMUB vs. IWFL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B (AMUB) is 5.40%, while ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN (IWFL) has a volatility of 6.11%. This indicates that AMUB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IWFL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AMUB	IWFL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.40%	6.11%	-0.71%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.82%	25.11%	-15.29%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.60%	31.98%	-18.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.24%	46.68%	-26.44%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.09%	46.29%	-19.20%

AMUB vs. IWFL - Expense Ratio Comparison

AMUB has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is lower than IWFL's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

AMUB vs. IWFL - Dividend Comparison

Neither AMUB nor IWFL has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AMUB and IWFL in my portfolio?

AMUB and IWFL have a correlation of -0.09, 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 IWFL?

IWFL has higher volatility (6.11%) compared to AMUB (5.40%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AMUB dropped -79.46% vs IWFL's -59.29%.

Which ETF is better, AMUB or IWFL?

On 5-year performance, IWFL leads with 20.43% vs 12.34% for AMUB. On fees, AMUB is cheaper at 0.80% per year. On volatility, AMUB has been the lower-risk option at 5.40%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AMUB or IWFL?

Over the 5-year period, IWFL has performed better with a 20.43% return vs 12.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AMUB or IWFL?

AMUB is cheaper with a 0.80% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for IWFL.

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

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

What is the main difference between AMUB and IWFL?

AMUB is categorized as MLPs, while IWFL is Leveraged Equities. AMUB tracks Alerian MLP Index, while IWFL tracks Russell 1000 Growth (200%). Their fees differ too: 0.80% for AMUB and 0.95% for IWFL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWFL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.53 vs 1.18), 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.