IWFL vs. BRKW
IWFL (ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN) and BRKW (Roundhill BRKB WeeklyPay ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWFL is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth (200%), while BRKW is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by Roundhill. IWFL is passively managed, while BRKW is actively managed. At a correlation of -0.06, they often move in opposite directions. IWFL charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.99%/yr for BRKW.
Performance
IWFL vs. BRKW - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IWFL achieves a 12.54% return, which is significantly higher than BRKW's -8.59% return.
IWFL
- 1D
- -0.80%
- 1M
- 12.28%
- YTD
- 12.54%
- 6M
- 10.59%
- 1Y
- 48.76%
- 3Y*
- 39.45%
- 5Y*
- 20.43%
- 10Y*
- —
BRKW
- 1D
- 0.53%
- 1M
- -0.64%
- YTD
- -8.59%
- 6M
- -9.81%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IWFL vs. BRKW - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
IWFL ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN | 12.54% | 29.81% |
BRKW Roundhill BRKB WeeklyPay ETF | -8.59% | 2.09% |
Correlation
The correlation between IWFL and BRKW is -0.06, 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 20, 2025 | -0.06 |
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
IWFL vs. BRKW — Risk / Return Rank
IWFL
BRKW
IWFL vs. BRKW - 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 Roundhill BRKB WeeklyPay ETF (BRKW). 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 | BRKW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 1.53 | — | — |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 2.01 | — | — |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.27 | — | — |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.52 | — | — |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.86 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| IWFL | BRKW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.53 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.44 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.42 | -0.41 | +0.83 |
Drawdowns
IWFL vs. BRKW - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWFL drawdown since its inception was -59.29%, which is greater than BRKW's maximum drawdown of -12.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWFL and BRKW.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IWFL | BRKW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -59.29% | -12.64% | -46.65% |
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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.80% | -11.51% | +10.71% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -19.95% | -5.32% | -14.63% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 10.28% | — | — |
Volatility
IWFL vs. BRKW - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IWFL | BRKW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.11% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 25.11% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 31.98% | 17.24% | +14.74% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 46.68% | 17.24% | +29.44% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 46.29% | 17.24% | +29.05% |
IWFL vs. BRKW - Expense Ratio Comparison
IWFL has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is lower than BRKW's 0.99% expense ratio.
Dividends
IWFL vs. BRKW - Dividend Comparison
IWFL has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BRKW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 25.42%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
BRKW Roundhill BRKB WeeklyPay ETF | 25.42% | 14.45% |
IWFL ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IWFL and BRKW have a correlation of -0.06, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, IWFL is cheaper at 0.95% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
IWFL is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for BRKW.
BRKW has the higher dividend yield at 25.42%, compared with 0.00% for IWFL.
IWFL is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while BRKW is Derivative Income. They also come from different issuers: UBS and Roundhill. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for IWFL and 0.99% for BRKW.
Find the right allocation for IWFL and BRKW
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