IBIF vs. INTW

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

IBIF (iShares iBonds Oct 2029 Term TIPS ETF) and INTW (GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IBIF is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the ICE 2029 Maturity US Inflation-Linked Treasury Index, while INTW is a Leveraged Equities fund actively managed by GraniteShares. IBIF is passively managed, while INTW is actively managed. Over the past year, IBIF returned 4.69% vs 1596.33% for INTW. At a correlation of -0.10, they often move in opposite directions. IBIF charges 0.10%/yr vs 1.50%/yr for INTW.

Performance

IBIF vs. INTW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares iBonds Oct 2029 Term TIPS ETF (IBIF) and GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IBIF achieves a 1.81% return, which is significantly lower than INTW's 552.98% return.

IBIF

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: -0.08%
• YTD: 1.81%
• 6M: 1.76%
• 1Y: 4.69%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

INTW

• 1D: -1.47%
• 1M: 1.09%
• YTD: 552.98%
• 6M: 433.74%
• 1Y: 1,596.33%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IBIF vs. INTW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
IBIF iShares iBonds Oct 2029 Term TIPS ETF	1.81%	5.85%
INTW GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF	552.98%	50.41%

Correlation

The correlation between IBIF and INTW is -0.07, 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	-0.07
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 14, 2025	-0.10

Return for Risk

IBIF vs. INTW — Risk / Return Rank

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

IBIF

IBIF Risk / Return Rank: 82
IBIF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
IBIF Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
IBIF Omega Ratio Rank: 79
IBIF Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
IBIF Martin Ratio Rank: 83

INTW

INTW Risk / Return Rank: 97
INTW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
INTW Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
INTW Omega Ratio Rank: 93
INTW Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
INTW Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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.

IBIF vs. INTW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBonds Oct 2029 Term TIPS ETF (IBIF) and GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW). 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.

	IBIF	INTW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.33	11.27	-8.95
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.93	5.08	-1.14
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	1.64	-0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.96	32.74	-27.78
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.65	76.36	-59.71
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IBIF vs. INTW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBIF Sharpe Ratio is 2.33, which is lower than the INTW Sharpe Ratio of 11.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBIF and INTW, 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

	IBIF	INTW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.33	11.27	-8.95
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.70	3.33	-1.62

Drawdowns

IBIF vs. INTW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBIF drawdown since its inception was -2.50%, smaller than the maximum INTW drawdown of -60.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBIF and INTW.

Drawdown Indicators

	IBIF	INTW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-2.50%	-60.58%	+58.08%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.95%	-49.34%	+48.39%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.21%	-27.77%	+27.56%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.55%	-30.06%	+29.51%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.29%	21.12%	-20.83%

Volatility

IBIF vs. INTW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares iBonds Oct 2029 Term TIPS ETF (IBIF) is 0.45%, while GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW) has a volatility of 42.92%. This indicates that IBIF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than INTW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IBIF	INTW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.45%	42.92%	-42.47%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.33%	110.50%	-109.17%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.03%	143.34%	-141.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.54%	145.01%	-141.47%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.54%	145.01%	-141.47%

IBIF vs. INTW - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBIF has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is lower than INTW's 1.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

IBIF vs. INTW - Dividend Comparison

IBIF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.74%, while INTW has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
IBIF iShares iBonds Oct 2029 Term TIPS ETF	3.74%	4.51%	4.05%	0.96%
INTW GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IBIF and INTW in my portfolio?

IBIF and INTW have a correlation of -0.07, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IBIF or INTW?

INTW has higher volatility (42.92%) compared to IBIF (0.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBIF dropped -2.50% vs INTW's -60.58%.

Which ETF is better, IBIF or INTW?

On 1-year performance, INTW leads with 1596.33% vs 4.69% for IBIF. On fees, IBIF is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, IBIF has been the lower-risk option at 0.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IBIF or INTW?

Over the 1-year period, INTW has performed better with a 1596.33% return vs 4.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IBIF or INTW?

IBIF is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for INTW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IBIF or INTW?

IBIF has the higher dividend yield at 3.74%, compared with 0.00% for INTW.

What is the main difference between IBIF and INTW?

IBIF is categorized as Inflation-Protected Bonds, while INTW is Leveraged Equities. They also come from different issuers: iShares and GraniteShares. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for IBIF and 1.50% for INTW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

INTW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.27 vs 2.33), 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.