IWDL vs. UMDD

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

IWDL (ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Value Factor TR ETN) and UMDD (ProShares UltraPro MidCap400) are both Leveraged Equities funds - IWDL tracks the Russell 1000 Value (200%) while UMDD tracks the S&P MidCap 400 Index (300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IWDL returned 14.71%/yr vs 3.33%/yr for UMDD. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

IWDL vs. UMDD - 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 ProShares UltraPro MidCap400 (UMDD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWDL achieves a 31.68% return, which is significantly lower than UMDD's 43.81% return.

IWDL

• 1D: 2.56%
• 1M: 4.69%
• YTD: 31.68%
• 6M: 28.86%
• 1Y: 56.64%
• 3Y*: 30.66%
• 5Y*: 14.71%
• 10Y*: —

UMDD

• 1D: 2.53%
• 1M: 6.56%
• YTD: 43.81%
• 6M: 35.22%
• 1Y: 70.44%
• 3Y*: 26.82%
• 5Y*: 3.33%
• 10Y*: 14.56%

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

IWDL vs. UMDD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
IWDL ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Value Factor TR ETN	31.68%	25.02%	20.68%	13.50%	-21.27%	40.35%
UMDD ProShares UltraPro MidCap400	43.81%	-2.57%	19.68%	27.21%	-49.60%	46.28%

Correlation

The correlation between IWDL and UMDD is 0.87, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.87
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.90
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 5, 2021	0.91

The correlation between IWDL and UMDD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

IWDL vs. UMDD — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWDL

IWDL Risk / Return Rank: 85
IWDL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
IWDL Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
IWDL Omega Ratio Rank: 80
IWDL Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
IWDL Martin Ratio Rank: 89

UMDD

UMDD Risk / Return Rank: 52
UMDD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 49
UMDD Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
UMDD Omega Ratio Rank: 44
UMDD Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
UMDD Martin Ratio Rank: 59

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. UMDD - 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 ProShares UltraPro MidCap400 (UMDD). 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.

	IWDL	UMDD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.44	1.49	+0.95
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.27	2.11	+1.16
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.25	+0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.21	2.72	+1.49
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.17	9.09	+8.07

IWDL vs. UMDD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWDL Sharpe Ratio is 2.44, which is higher than the UMDD Sharpe Ratio of 1.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWDL and UMDD, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

IWDL vs. UMDD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWDL drawdown since its inception was -37.95%, smaller than the maximum UMDD drawdown of -86.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWDL and UMDD.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWDL	UMDD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-37.95%	-86.24%	+48.29%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.53%	-26.04%	+12.51%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-31.78%	-60.33%	+28.55%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-37.95%	-64.61%	+26.66%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-86.24%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-1.51%	+1.51%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.49%	-23.54%	+13.05%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.31%	7.77%	-4.46%

Volatility

IWDL vs. UMDD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Value Factor TR ETN (IWDL) is 7.40%, while ProShares UltraPro MidCap400 (UMDD) has a volatility of 12.93%. This indicates that IWDL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than UMDD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWDL	UMDD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.40%	12.93%	-5.53%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.43%	35.29%	-16.86%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.38%	47.47%	-24.09%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	30.34%	58.95%	-28.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	29.99%	62.21%	-32.22%

IWDL vs. UMDD - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

IWDL vs. UMDD - Dividend Comparison

IWDL has not paid dividends to shareholders, while UMDD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.65%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IWDL ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Value Factor TR ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
UMDD ProShares UltraPro MidCap400	0.65%	1.00%	0.76%	0.19%	0.49%	0.06%	0.08%	0.64%	0.32%	0.00%	0.03%	0.06%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWDL and UMDD in my portfolio?

IWDL and UMDD have a correlation of 0.87, 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 UMDD?

UMDD has higher volatility (12.93%) compared to IWDL (7.40%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWDL dropped -37.95% vs UMDD's -86.24%.

Which ETF is better, IWDL or UMDD?

On 5-year performance, IWDL leads with 14.71% vs 3.33% for UMDD. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, IWDL has been the lower-risk option at 7.40%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWDL or UMDD?

Over the 5-year period, IWDL has performed better with a 14.71% return vs 3.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWDL or UMDD?

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

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

UMDD has the higher dividend yield at 0.65%, compared with 0.00% for IWDL.

What is the main difference between IWDL and UMDD?

IWDL tracks Russell 1000 Value (200%), while UMDD tracks S&P MidCap 400 Index (300%). They also come from different issuers: UBS and ProShares.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWDL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.44 vs 1.49), 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.