IRVH vs. MLPR
IRVH (Global X Interest Rate Volatility & Inflation Hedge ETF) and MLPR (ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Alerian MLP Index ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - IRVH is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund actively managed by Global X, while MLPR is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Alerian MLP Index (150%). IRVH is actively managed, while MLPR is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, IRVH returned 0.11%/yr vs 31.28%/yr for MLPR. Their -0.01 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. IRVH charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for MLPR.
Performance
IRVH vs. MLPR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IRVH achieves a -4.59% return, which is significantly lower than MLPR's 39.50% return.
IRVH
- 1D
- -0.11%
- 1M
- -0.67%
- 6M
- -4.04%
- YTD
- -4.59%
- 1Y
- -3.57%
- 3Y*
- 0.11%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- -2.19%
MLPR
- 1D
- 1.62%
- 1M
- 11.14%
- 6M
- 25.11%
- YTD
- 39.50%
- 1Y
- 39.67%
- 3Y*
- 31.28%
- 5Y*
- 31.23%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 32.46%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $471.52 | $4.02K | $5.19K | |
| $34.92K | $44.03K | $37.73K |
IRVH vs. MLPR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IRVH Global X Interest Rate Volatility & Inflation Hedge ETF | -4.59% | 7.71% | -5.49% | 0.83% | -6.69% |
MLPR ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Alerian MLP Index ETN | 39.50% | 9.83% | 31.57% | 35.87% | 26.31% |
Correlation
The correlation between IRVH and MLPR is -0.13, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | -0.13 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | -0.02 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 6, 2022 | -0.01 |
The correlation between IRVH and MLPR shifts across timeframes, from -0.13 (1 year) to -0.01 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
IRVH vs. MLPR — Risk / Return Rank
IRVH
MLPR
IRVH vs. MLPR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Interest Rate Volatility & Inflation Hedge ETF (IRVH) and ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Alerian MLP Index ETN (MLPR). 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.
| IRVH | MLPR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.32 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -3.09 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.90 | 1.28 | -0.38 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.49 | 2.55 | -3.04 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.97 | 7.25 | -8.23 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IRVH vs. MLPR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IRVH drawdown since its inception was -14.98%, smaller than the maximum MLPR drawdown of -48.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IRVH and MLPR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IRVH | MLPR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -14.98% | -48.98% | +34.00% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -6.48% | -14.31% | +7.83% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -8.03% | -24.45% | +16.42% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -28.66% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -11.49% | -0.13% | -11.36% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -9.76% | -8.89% | -0.87% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.26% | 5.35% | -2.09% |
Volatility
IRVH vs. MLPR - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Global X Interest Rate Volatility & Inflation Hedge ETF (IRVH) is 0.88%, while ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Alerian MLP Index ETN (MLPR) has a volatility of 8.44%. This indicates that IRVH experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MLPR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IRVH | MLPR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.88% | 8.44% | -7.56% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.18% | 17.18% | -14.00% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.66% | 22.38% | -17.72% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 8.70% | 29.11% | -20.41% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 8.70% | 33.66% | -24.96% |
IRVH vs. MLPR - Expense Ratio Comparison
IRVH has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than MLPR's 0.95% expense ratio.
Dividends
IRVH vs. MLPR - Dividend Comparison
IRVH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.68%, less than MLPR's 8.83% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IRVH Global X Interest Rate Volatility & Inflation Hedge ETF | 5.31% | 4.89% | 3.34% | 3.69% | 2.73% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
MLPR ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Alerian MLP Index ETN | 8.83% | 10.85% | 9.57% | 10.08% | 7.49% | 10.69% | 4.21% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IRVH and MLPR have a correlation of -0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
MLPR has higher volatility (8.44%) compared to IRVH (0.88%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IRVH dropped -14.98% vs MLPR's -48.98%.
On 3-year performance, MLPR leads with 31.28% vs 0.11% for IRVH. On fees, IRVH is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, IRVH has been the lower-risk option at 0.88%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, MLPR has performed better with a 31.28% return vs 0.11%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IRVH is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for MLPR.
MLPR has the higher dividend yield at 8.83%, compared with 5.31% for IRVH.
IRVH is categorized as Inflation-Protected Bonds, while MLPR is Leveraged Equities. They also come from different issuers: Global X and UBS. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for IRVH and 0.95% for MLPR.
MLPR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.63 vs -0.68), 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.
Find the right allocation for IRVH and MLPR
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