IWFL vs. COIG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IWFL (ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN) and COIG (Leverage Shares 2X Long COIN Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. IWFL is passively managed, while COIG is actively managed. Over the past year, IWFL returned 43.59% vs -74.30% for COIG. A 0.59 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IWFL charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for COIG.

Performance

IWFL vs. COIG - 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 COIN Daily ETF (COIG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWFL achieves a 10.15% return, which is significantly higher than COIG's -57.04% return.

IWFL

• 1D: -2.13%
• 1M: 10.61%
• YTD: 10.15%
• 6M: 8.37%
• 1Y: 43.59%
• 3Y*: 38.46%
• 5Y*: 19.24%
• 10Y*: —

COIG

• 1D: -9.37%
• 1M: -21.48%
• YTD: -57.04%
• 6M: -69.23%
• 1Y: -74.30%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IWFL vs. COIG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
IWFL ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN	10.15%	43.39%
COIG Leverage Shares 2X Long COIN Daily ETF	-57.04%	-9.46%

Correlation

The correlation between IWFL and COIG is 0.53, 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	0.53
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 17, 2025	0.59

The correlation between IWFL and COIG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.53 to 0.59 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

IWFL vs. COIG — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWFL

IWFL Risk / Return Rank: 33
IWFL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
IWFL Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
IWFL Omega Ratio Rank: 36
IWFL Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
IWFL Martin Ratio Rank: 29

COIG

COIG Risk / Return Rank: 4
COIG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
COIG Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
COIG Omega Ratio Rank: 5
COIG Calmar Ratio Rank: 2
COIG Martin Ratio Rank: 3

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. COIG - 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 COIN Daily ETF (COIG). 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	COIG	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.37	-0.54	+1.90
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.85	-0.43	+2.28
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	0.95	+0.29
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.34	-0.81	+2.14
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	4.25	-1.13	+5.39
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. COIG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWFL Sharpe Ratio is 1.37, which is higher than the COIG Sharpe Ratio of -0.54. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWFL and COIG, 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	COIG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.37	-0.54	+1.90
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.41	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.41	-0.37	+0.78

Drawdowns

IWFL vs. COIG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWFL drawdown since its inception was -59.29%, smaller than the maximum COIG drawdown of -92.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWFL and COIG.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWFL	COIG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-59.29%	-92.06%	+32.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-32.80%	-92.06%	+59.26%
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	-2.91%	-90.34%	+87.43%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-19.94%	-51.57%	+31.63%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.28%	65.63%	-55.35%

Volatility

IWFL vs. COIG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN (IWFL) is 6.58%, while Leverage Shares 2X Long COIN Daily ETF (COIG) has a volatility of 38.85%. This indicates that IWFL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than COIG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWFL	COIG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.58%	38.85%	-32.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	25.19%	100.04%	-74.85%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	32.05%	138.91%	-106.86%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	46.69%	146.33%	-99.64%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	46.29%	146.33%	-100.04%

IWFL vs. COIG - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

IWFL vs. COIG - Dividend Comparison

Neither IWFL nor COIG has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWFL and COIG in my portfolio?

IWFL and COIG have a correlation of 0.53, 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 COIG?

COIG has higher volatility (38.85%) compared to IWFL (6.58%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWFL dropped -59.29% vs COIG's -92.06%.

Which ETF is better, IWFL or COIG?

On 1-year performance, IWFL leads with 43.59% vs -74.30% for COIG. On fees, COIG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, IWFL has been the lower-risk option at 6.58%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWFL or COIG?

Over the 1-year period, IWFL has performed better with a 43.59% return vs -74.30%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWFL or COIG?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between IWFL and COIG?

They also come from different issuers: UBS and Leverage Shares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for IWFL and 0.75% for COIG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWFL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.37 vs -0.54), 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.