PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CEFD vs. SCDL
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CEFD vs. SCDL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN (CEFD) and ETRACS 2x Leveraged U.S. Dividend Factor TR ETN (SCDL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CEFD achieves a 6.26% return, which is significantly lower than SCDL's 37.06% return.


CEFD

1D
-0.98%
1M
2.61%
YTD
6.26%
6M
6.56%
1Y
18.31%
3Y*
15.60%
5Y*
3.13%
10Y*

SCDL

1D
0.51%
1M
5.01%
YTD
37.06%
6M
35.80%
1Y
50.97%
3Y*
22.79%
5Y*
9.40%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CEFD vs. SCDL - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
CEFD
ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN
6.26%14.15%20.06%8.36%-28.93%18.47%
SCDL
ETRACS 2x Leveraged U.S. Dividend Factor TR ETN
37.06%2.05%14.99%0.18%-13.06%52.47%

Correlation

The correlation between CEFD and SCDL is 0.33, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.33

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.51

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.61

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 8, 2021

0.60

Over the past year, the correlation between CEFD and SCDL has dropped to 0.33 - well below their long-term average of 0.60, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

CEFD vs. SCDL — Risk / Return Rank

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

CEFD
CEFD Risk / Return Rank: 3939
Overall Rank
CEFD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4040
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CEFD Sortino Ratio Rank: 3939
Sortino Ratio Rank
CEFD Omega Ratio Rank: 4545
Omega Ratio Rank
CEFD Calmar Ratio Rank: 3030
Calmar Ratio Rank
CEFD Martin Ratio Rank: 4242
Martin Ratio Rank

SCDL
SCDL Risk / Return Rank: 7373
Overall Rank
SCDL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7373
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SCDL Sortino Ratio Rank: 7575
Sortino Ratio Rank
SCDL Omega Ratio Rank: 6464
Omega Ratio Rank
SCDL Calmar Ratio Rank: 8787
Calmar Ratio Rank
SCDL Martin Ratio Rank: 6868
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

CEFD vs. SCDL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN (CEFD) and ETRACS 2x Leveraged U.S. Dividend Factor TR ETN (SCDL). 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.


CEFDSCDLDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.94

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.38

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.29

1.39

-0.10

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.47

5.03

-3.56

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

6.84

12.65

-5.80

CEFD vs. SCDL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CEFD Sharpe Ratio is 1.43, which is lower than the SCDL Sharpe Ratio of 2.37. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CEFD and SCDL, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


CEFDSCDLDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.43

2.37

-0.94

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.18

0.33

-0.15

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.52

0.53

-0.02

Drawdowns

CEFD vs. SCDL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CEFD drawdown since its inception was -36.95%, which is greater than SCDL's maximum drawdown of -34.87%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEFD and SCDL.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CEFDSCDLDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-36.95%

-34.87%

-2.08%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.51%

-10.19%

-2.32%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-21.76%

-32.79%

+11.03%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-36.95%

-34.87%

-2.08%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.14%

-2.79%

+1.65%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-11.72%

-11.96%

+0.24%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.68%

4.04%

-1.36%

Volatility

CEFD vs. SCDL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN (CEFD) is 4.05%, while ETRACS 2x Leveraged U.S. Dividend Factor TR ETN (SCDL) has a volatility of 5.20%. This indicates that CEFD experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SCDL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CEFDSCDLDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.05%

5.20%

-1.15%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.27%

14.82%

-3.55%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.86%

21.66%

-8.80%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.93%

29.02%

-11.09%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.31%

28.89%

-11.58%

CEFD vs. SCDL - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both CEFD and SCDL have an expense ratio of 0.95%.


Dividends

CEFD vs. SCDL - Dividend Comparison

CEFD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 14.58%, while SCDL has not paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM202520242023202220212020
CEFD
ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN
14.58%14.88%13.90%14.76%16.56%10.31%5.37%
SCDL
ETRACS 2x Leveraged U.S. Dividend Factor TR ETN
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


CEFD and SCDL have a correlation of 0.33, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

SCDL has higher volatility (5.20%) compared to CEFD (4.05%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CEFD dropped -36.95% vs SCDL's -34.87%.

On 5-year performance, SCDL leads with 9.40% vs 3.13% for CEFD. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, CEFD has been the lower-risk option at 4.05%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, SCDL has performed better with a 9.40% return vs 3.13%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

CEFD and SCDL have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.

CEFD has the higher dividend yield at 14.58%, compared with 0.00% for SCDL.

CEFD tracks S-Network Composite Closed-End Fund Index (150%), while SCDL tracks Dow Jones U.S. Dividend 100 (200%).

SCDL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.37 vs 1.43), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CEFD and SCDL

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer