IWDL vs. CEFD

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

IWDL (ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Value Factor TR ETN) and CEFD (ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - IWDL is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Value (200%), while CEFD is a fund fund tracking the S-Network Composite Closed-End Fund Index (150%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IWDL returned 13.39%/yr vs 3.16%/yr for CEFD. A 0.73 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

IWDL vs. CEFD - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWDL achieves a 28.10% return, which is significantly higher than CEFD's 6.42% return.

IWDL

• 1D: 1.23%
• 1M: 6.86%
• YTD: 28.10%
• 6M: 29.30%
• 1Y: 56.29%
• 3Y*: 30.80%
• 5Y*: 13.39%
• 10Y*: —

CEFD

• 1D: 0.15%
• 1M: 2.43%
• YTD: 6.42%
• 6M: 6.94%
• 1Y: 18.20%
• 3Y*: 15.58%
• 5Y*: 3.16%
• 10Y*: —

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

IWDL vs. CEFD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
IWDL ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Value Factor TR ETN	28.10%	25.02%	20.68%	13.50%	-21.27%	40.35%
CEFD ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN	6.42%	14.15%	20.06%	8.36%	-28.93%	18.47%

Correlation

The correlation between IWDL and CEFD is 0.66, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.66
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.69
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 8, 2021	0.73

The correlation between IWDL and CEFD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.66 to 0.74 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

IWDL vs. CEFD — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWDL

IWDL Risk / Return Rank: 78
IWDL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
IWDL Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
IWDL Omega Ratio Rank: 73
IWDL Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
IWDL Martin Ratio Rank: 84

CEFD

CEFD Risk / Return Rank: 40
CEFD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
CEFD Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
CEFD Omega Ratio Rank: 46
CEFD Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
CEFD Martin Ratio Rank: 43

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.

IWDL vs. CEFD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	IWDL	CEFD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.49	1.42	+1.07
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.34	2.02	+1.32
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.29	+0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.18	1.46	+2.72
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.20	6.80	+10.40
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IWDL vs. CEFD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWDL Sharpe Ratio is 2.49, which is higher than the CEFD Sharpe Ratio of 1.42. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWDL and CEFD, 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

	IWDL	CEFD	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.49	1.42	+1.07
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.44	0.18	+0.27
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.61	0.52	+0.09

Drawdowns

IWDL vs. CEFD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWDL drawdown since its inception was -37.95%, roughly equal to the maximum CEFD drawdown of -36.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWDL and CEFD.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWDL	CEFD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-37.95%	-36.95%	-1.00%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.53%	-12.51%	-1.02%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-31.78%	-21.76%	-10.02%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-37.95%	-36.95%	-1.00%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.99%	+0.99%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.59%	-11.71%	+1.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.28%	2.68%	+0.60%

Volatility

IWDL vs. CEFD - Volatility Comparison

ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Value Factor TR ETN (IWDL) has a higher volatility of 5.51% compared to ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN (CEFD) at 4.04%. This indicates that IWDL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CEFD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWDL	CEFD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.51%	4.04%	+1.47%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.64%	11.26%	+6.38%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.76%	12.86%	+9.90%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	30.29%	17.93%	+12.36%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.01%	17.31%	+12.70%

IWDL vs. CEFD - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

IWDL vs. CEFD - Dividend Comparison

IWDL has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CEFD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 14.56%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
CEFD ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN	14.56%	14.88%	13.90%	14.76%	16.56%	10.31%	5.37%
IWDL ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Value Factor TR ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWDL and CEFD in my portfolio?

IWDL and CEFD have a correlation of 0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IWDL or CEFD?

IWDL has higher volatility (5.51%) compared to CEFD (4.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWDL dropped -37.95% vs CEFD's -36.95%.

Which ETF is better, IWDL or CEFD?

On 5-year performance, IWDL leads with 13.39% vs 3.16% for CEFD. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, CEFD has been the lower-risk option at 4.04%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWDL or CEFD?

Over the 5-year period, IWDL has performed better with a 13.39% return vs 3.16%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWDL or CEFD?

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

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IWDL or CEFD?

CEFD has the higher dividend yield at 14.56%, compared with 0.00% for IWDL.

What is the main difference between IWDL and CEFD?

IWDL tracks Russell 1000 Value (200%), while CEFD tracks S-Network Composite Closed-End Fund Index (150%).

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWDL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.49 vs 1.42), 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.