IWFL vs. BIDG

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

IWFL (ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN) and BIDG (Leverage Shares 2X Long BIDU Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds - IWFL tracks the Russell 1000 Growth (200%) while BIDG tracks the Baidu, Inc. (BIDU). Both are passively managed. At a 0.43 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IWFL charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for BIDG.

Performance

IWFL vs. BIDG - 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 Leverage Shares 2X Long BIDU Daily ETF (BIDG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWFL achieves a -3.75% return, which is significantly higher than BIDG's -47.16% return.

IWFL

• 1D: -2.43%
• 1M: -11.21%
• YTD: -3.75%
• 6M: -6.77%
• 1Y: 20.21%
• 3Y*: 31.77%
• 5Y*: 13.92%
• 10Y*: —

BIDG

• 1D: -7.34%
• 1M: -35.13%
• YTD: -47.16%
• 6M: -40.94%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IWFL vs. BIDG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
IWFL ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN	-3.75%	5.19%
BIDG Leverage Shares 2X Long BIDU Daily ETF	-47.16%	17.04%

Correlation

The correlation between IWFL and BIDG is 0.43, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 18, 2025	0.43

Return for Risk

IWFL vs. BIDG — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWFL

IWFL Risk / Return Rank: 19
IWFL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 19
IWFL Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
IWFL Omega Ratio Rank: 20
IWFL Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
IWFL Martin Ratio Rank: 18

BIDG

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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. BIDG - 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 Leverage Shares 2X Long BIDU Daily ETF (BIDG). 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.

	IWFL	BIDG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.61	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.01	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.62	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.92	—	—

Drawdowns

IWFL vs. BIDG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWFL drawdown since its inception was -59.29%, smaller than the maximum BIDG drawdown of -64.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWFL and BIDG.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWFL	BIDG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-59.29%	-64.84%	+5.55%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-32.80%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-46.84%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-59.29%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-15.16%	-64.84%	+49.68%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-19.81%	-34.77%	+14.96%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.56%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	IWFL	BIDG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.98%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	26.49%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	33.29%	102.33%	-69.04%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	46.88%	102.33%	-55.45%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	46.23%	102.33%	-56.10%

IWFL vs. BIDG - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWFL has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than BIDG's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWFL vs. BIDG - Dividend Comparison

Neither IWFL nor BIDG has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWFL and BIDG in my portfolio?

IWFL and BIDG have a correlation of 0.43, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, IWFL or BIDG?

On fees, BIDG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWFL or BIDG?

BIDG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for IWFL.

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

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

What is the main difference between IWFL and BIDG?

IWFL tracks Russell 1000 Growth (200%), while BIDG tracks Baidu, Inc. (BIDU). They also come from different issuers: UBS and Leverage Shares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for IWFL and 0.75% for BIDG.