IWFL vs. FSPGX

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

IWFL (ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN) and FSPGX (Fidelity Large Cap Growth Index Fund) are both funds - IWFL is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth (200%), while FSPGX is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund managed by Fidelity. Over the past 5 years, IWFL returned 20.43%/yr vs 15.94%/yr for FSPGX. With a 0.98 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. IWFL charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for FSPGX.

Performance

IWFL vs. FSPGX - 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 Fidelity Large Cap Growth Index Fund (FSPGX). 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 higher than FSPGX's 9.01% return.

IWFL

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

FSPGX

• 1D: 0.72%
• 1M: 7.25%
• YTD: 9.01%
• 6M: 8.27%
• 1Y: 28.79%
• 3Y*: 25.69%
• 5Y*: 15.94%
• 10Y*: —

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

IWFL vs. FSPGX - 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%
FSPGX Fidelity Large Cap Growth Index Fund	9.01%	18.54%	33.27%	42.77%	-29.17%	22.32%

Correlation

The correlation between IWFL and FSPGX is 0.98 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.98
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.97
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.98
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 8, 2021	0.98

The correlation between IWFL and FSPGX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.97 to 0.98 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

IWFL vs. FSPGX — 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

FSPGX

FSPGX Risk / Return Rank: 33
FSPGX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
FSPGX Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
FSPGX Omega Ratio Rank: 39
FSPGX Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
FSPGX Martin Ratio Rank: 23

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. FSPGX - 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 Fidelity Large Cap Growth Index Fund (FSPGX). 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	FSPGX	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.53	1.93	-0.40
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.01	2.60	-0.58
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.33	-0.07
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.52	1.83	-0.30
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	4.86	6.14	-1.27
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. FSPGX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWFL Sharpe Ratio is 1.53, which is comparable to the FSPGX Sharpe Ratio of 1.93. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWFL and FSPGX, 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	FSPGX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.53	1.93	-0.40
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.44	0.75	-0.31
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.42	0.90	-0.48

Drawdowns

IWFL vs. FSPGX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWFL drawdown since its inception was -59.29%, which is greater than FSPGX's maximum drawdown of -32.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWFL and FSPGX.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWFL	FSPGX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-59.29%	-32.66%	-26.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-32.80%	-16.17%	-16.63%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-46.84%	-23.32%	-23.52%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-59.29%	-32.66%	-26.63%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.80%	0.00%	-0.80%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-19.95%	-6.38%	-13.57%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.28%	4.81%	+5.47%

Volatility

IWFL vs. FSPGX - Volatility Comparison

ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN (IWFL) has a higher volatility of 6.11% compared to Fidelity Large Cap Growth Index Fund (FSPGX) at 3.26%. This indicates that IWFL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FSPGX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWFL	FSPGX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.11%	3.26%	+2.85%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	25.11%	11.58%	+13.53%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	31.98%	15.41%	+16.57%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	46.68%	21.49%	+25.19%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	46.29%	21.55%	+24.74%

IWFL vs. FSPGX - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWFL has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than FSPGX's 0.04% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWFL vs. FSPGX - Dividend Comparison

IWFL has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FSPGX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.32%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FSPGX Fidelity Large Cap Growth Index Fund	0.32%	0.34%	0.37%	0.73%	0.86%	2.22%	1.76%	1.04%	1.32%	0.22%
IWFL ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWFL and FSPGX in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.98, IWFL and FSPGX move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, IWFL or FSPGX?

IWFL has higher volatility (6.11%) compared to FSPGX (3.26%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWFL dropped -59.29% vs FSPGX's -32.66%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FSPGX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.93 vs 1.53), 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.