IWFL vs. GLDI
IWFL (ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN) and GLDI (UBS AG ETRACS Gold Shares Covered Call ETNs due February 2, 2033) are both exchange-traded funds - IWFL is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth (200%), while GLDI is a Gold fund tracking the Credit Suisse NASDAQ Gold FLOWS 103 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IWFL returned 14.74%/yr vs 10.96%/yr for GLDI. At a 0.12 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IWFL charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for GLDI.
Performance
IWFL vs. GLDI - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IWFL achieves a -0.55% return, which is significantly higher than GLDI's -4.45% return.
IWFL
- 1D
- -2.52%
- 1M
- -7.42%
- YTD
- -0.55%
- 6M
- -3.20%
- 1Y
- 27.71%
- 3Y*
- 32.31%
- 5Y*
- 14.74%
- 10Y*
- —
GLDI
- 1D
- -1.62%
- 1M
- -7.19%
- YTD
- -4.45%
- 6M
- -5.42%
- 1Y
- 11.67%
- 3Y*
- 17.47%
- 5Y*
- 10.96%
- 10Y*
- 7.83%
IWFL vs. GLDI - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IWFL ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN | -0.55% | 18.54% | 61.94% | 84.47% | -55.71% | 46.03% |
GLDI UBS AG ETRACS Gold Shares Covered Call ETNs due February 2, 2033 | -4.45% | 34.25% | 17.76% | 8.93% | -1.11% | 1.38% |
Correlation
The correlation between IWFL and GLDI is 0.23, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.23 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.12 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.11 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 5, 2021 | 0.12 |
The correlation between IWFL and GLDI shifts across timeframes, from 0.11 (5 years) to 0.23 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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. GLDI — Risk / Return Rank
IWFL
GLDI
IWFL vs. GLDI - 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 UBS AG ETRACS Gold Shares Covered Call ETNs due February 2, 2033 (GLDI). 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 | GLDI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.10 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.26 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.16 | 1.16 | +0.01 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.85 | 0.83 | +0.02 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.65 | 2.73 | -0.08 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IWFL vs. GLDI - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWFL drawdown since its inception was -59.29%, which is greater than GLDI's maximum drawdown of -32.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWFL and GLDI.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IWFL | GLDI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -59.29% | -32.26% | -27.03% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -32.80% | -14.14% | -18.66% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -46.84% | -14.14% | -32.70% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -59.29% | -14.14% | -45.15% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -14.94% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -12.34% | -13.28% | +0.94% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -19.82% | -13.99% | -5.83% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 10.49% | 4.30% | +6.19% |
Volatility
IWFL vs. GLDI - Volatility Comparison
ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN (IWFL) has a higher volatility of 10.92% compared to UBS AG ETRACS Gold Shares Covered Call ETNs due February 2, 2033 (GLDI) at 7.18%. This indicates that IWFL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GLDI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IWFL | GLDI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 10.92% | 7.18% | +3.74% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 26.51% | 14.58% | +11.93% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 33.32% | 15.99% | +17.33% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 46.86% | 11.58% | +35.28% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 46.25% | 11.52% | +34.73% |
IWFL vs. GLDI - Expense Ratio Comparison
IWFL has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than GLDI's 0.65% expense ratio.
Dividends
IWFL vs. GLDI - Dividend Comparison
IWFL has not paid dividends to shareholders, while GLDI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 26.67%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GLDI UBS AG ETRACS Gold Shares Covered Call ETNs due February 2, 2033 | 26.67% | 16.15% | 10.45% | 10.02% | 13.73% | 10.65% | 14.25% | 7.25% | 5.33% | 7.77% | 17.26% | 10.07% |
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% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IWFL and GLDI have a correlation of 0.23, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IWFL has higher volatility (10.92%) compared to GLDI (7.18%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWFL dropped -59.29% vs GLDI's -32.26%.
On 5-year performance, IWFL leads with 14.74% vs 10.96% for GLDI. On fees, GLDI is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, GLDI has been the lower-risk option at 7.18%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, IWFL has performed better with a 14.74% return vs 10.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GLDI is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for IWFL.
GLDI has the higher dividend yield at 26.67%, compared with 0.00% for IWFL.
IWFL is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while GLDI is Gold. IWFL tracks Russell 1000 Growth (200%), while GLDI tracks Credit Suisse NASDAQ Gold FLOWS 103 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for IWFL and 0.65% for GLDI.
IWFL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.84 vs 0.73), 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.
Find the right allocation for IWFL and GLDI
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