CIFG vs. IWML

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

CIFG (Leverage Shares 2X Long CIFR Daily ETF) and IWML (ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN) are both Leveraged Equities funds. CIFG is actively managed, while IWML is passively managed. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CIFG charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for IWML.

Performance

CIFG vs. IWML - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Leverage Shares 2X Long CIFR Daily ETF (CIFG) and ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN (IWML). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CIFG achieves a -26.74% return, which is significantly lower than IWML's 38.17% return.

CIFG

• 1D: -21.93%
• 1M: -59.11%
• 6M: -46.89%
• YTD: -26.74%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IWML

• 1D: -0.56%
• 1M: 1.63%
• 6M: 19.40%
• YTD: 38.17%
• 1Y: 68.40%
• 3Y*: 21.70%
• 5Y*: 6.11%
• 10Y*: —

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

CIFG vs. IWML - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CIFG Leverage Shares 2X Long CIFR Daily ETF	-26.74%	-32.52%
IWML ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN	38.17%	-5.69%

Correlation

The correlation between CIFG and IWML is 0.54, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 11, 2025	0.54

Return for Risk

CIFG vs. IWML — Risk / Return Rank

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

CIFG

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

IWML

IWML Risk / Return Rank: 67
IWML Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
IWML Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
IWML Omega Ratio Rank: 58
IWML Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
IWML Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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.

CIFG vs. IWML - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Leverage Shares 2X Long CIFR Daily ETF (CIFG) and ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN (IWML). 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.

	CIFG	IWML	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	1.72	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	2.39	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.29	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	3.02	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	10.53	—

Drawdowns

CIFG vs. IWML - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CIFG drawdown since its inception was -71.71%, which is greater than IWML's maximum drawdown of -60.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CIFG and IWML.

Drawdown Indicators

	CIFG	IWML	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-71.71%	-60.06%	-11.65%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-22.75%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-51.82%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-60.06%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-66.62%	-2.90%	-63.72%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-36.36%	-31.25%	-5.11%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	6.52%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	CIFG	IWML	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	12.70%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	30.04%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	206.17%	39.98%	+166.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	206.17%	46.31%	+159.86%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	206.17%	46.14%	+160.03%

CIFG vs. IWML - Expense Ratio Comparison

CIFG has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than IWML's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

CIFG vs. IWML - Dividend Comparison

Neither CIFG nor IWML has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CIFG and IWML in my portfolio?

CIFG and IWML have a correlation of 0.54, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CIFG or IWML?

On fees, CIFG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CIFG or IWML?

CIFG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for IWML.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CIFG or IWML?

CIFG and IWML have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between CIFG and IWML?

They also come from different issuers: Leverage Shares and UBS. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for CIFG and 0.95% for IWML.