IWFL vs. AMUB

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

IWFL (ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN) and AMUB (ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B) are both exchange-traded funds - IWFL is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth (200%), while AMUB is a MLPs fund tracking the Alerian MLP Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IWFL returned 20.43%/yr vs 12.50%/yr for AMUB. At a 0.28 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IWFL charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.80%/yr for AMUB.

Performance

IWFL vs. AMUB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN (IWFL) and ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B (AMUB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWFL achieves a 12.54% return, which is significantly lower than AMUB's 17.24% return.

IWFL

• 1D: -0.80%
• 1M: 12.28%
• YTD: 12.54%
• 6M: 10.59%
• 1Y: 48.76%
• 3Y*: 39.45%
• 5Y*: 20.43%
• 10Y*: —

AMUB

• 1D: 1.02%
• 1M: -1.02%
• YTD: 17.24%
• 6M: 16.74%
• 1Y: 17.83%
• 3Y*: 15.89%
• 5Y*: 12.50%
• 10Y*: 3.08%

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

IWFL vs. AMUB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
IWFL ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN	12.54%	18.54%	61.94%	84.47%	-55.71%	46.03%
AMUB ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B	17.24%	2.05%	15.68%	16.89%	21.91%	17.20%

Correlation

The correlation between IWFL and AMUB is -0.08, 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	-0.08
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.16
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.28
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 8, 2021	0.28

The correlation between IWFL and AMUB shifts across timeframes, from -0.08 (1 year) to 0.28 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

IWFL vs. AMUB — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWFL

IWFL Risk / Return Rank: 37
IWFL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
IWFL Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
IWFL Omega Ratio Rank: 40
IWFL Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
IWFL Martin Ratio Rank: 32

AMUB

AMUB Risk / Return Rank: 35
AMUB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
AMUB Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
AMUB Omega Ratio Rank: 34
AMUB Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
AMUB Martin Ratio Rank: 33

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.

IWFL vs. AMUB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN (IWFL) and ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B (AMUB). 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.

	IWFL	AMUB	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.53	1.32	+0.21
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.01	1.88	+0.14
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.23	+0.04
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.52	1.74	-0.21
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	4.86	5.17	-0.30
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IWFL vs. AMUB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWFL Sharpe Ratio is 1.53, which is comparable to the AMUB Sharpe Ratio of 1.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWFL and AMUB, 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

	IWFL	AMUB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.53	1.32	+0.21
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.44	0.62	-0.18
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.11	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.42	0.00	+0.42

Drawdowns

IWFL vs. AMUB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWFL drawdown since its inception was -59.29%, smaller than the maximum AMUB drawdown of -79.46%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWFL and AMUB.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWFL	AMUB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-59.29%	-79.46%	+20.17%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-32.80%	-10.37%	-22.43%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-46.84%	-17.22%	-29.62%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-59.29%	-20.58%	-38.71%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-78.86%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.80%	-5.94%	+5.14%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-19.95%	-29.23%	+9.28%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.28%	3.49%	+6.79%

Volatility

IWFL vs. AMUB - Volatility Comparison

ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN (IWFL) has a higher volatility of 6.11% compared to ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B (AMUB) at 5.50%. This indicates that IWFL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than AMUB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWFL	AMUB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.11%	5.50%	+0.61%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	25.11%	9.84%	+15.27%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	31.98%	13.61%	+18.37%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	46.68%	20.24%	+26.44%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	46.29%	27.09%	+19.20%

IWFL vs. AMUB - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWFL has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than AMUB's 0.80% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWFL vs. AMUB - Dividend Comparison

Neither IWFL nor AMUB has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWFL and AMUB in my portfolio?

IWFL and AMUB have a correlation of -0.08, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IWFL or AMUB?

IWFL has higher volatility (6.11%) compared to AMUB (5.50%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWFL dropped -59.29% vs AMUB's -79.46%.

Which ETF is better, IWFL or AMUB?

On 5-year performance, IWFL leads with 20.43% vs 12.50% for AMUB. On fees, AMUB is cheaper at 0.80% per year. On volatility, AMUB has been the lower-risk option at 5.50%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWFL or AMUB?

Over the 5-year period, IWFL has performed better with a 20.43% return vs 12.50%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWFL or AMUB?

AMUB is cheaper with a 0.80% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for IWFL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IWFL or AMUB?

IWFL and AMUB have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between IWFL and AMUB?

IWFL is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while AMUB is MLPs. IWFL tracks Russell 1000 Growth (200%), while AMUB tracks Alerian MLP Index. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for IWFL and 0.80% for AMUB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWFL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.53 vs 1.32), 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.