IWFL vs. INTW

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

IWFL (ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN) and INTW (GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. IWFL is passively managed, while INTW is actively managed. Over the past year, IWFL returned 20.21% vs 1806.94% for INTW. At a 0.38 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IWFL charges 0.95%/yr vs 1.50%/yr for INTW.

Performance

IWFL vs. INTW - 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 GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW). 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 lower than INTW's 760.00% return.

IWFL

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

INTW

• 1D: 2.24%
• 1M: 6.98%
• YTD: 760.00%
• 6M: 794.84%
• 1Y: 1,806.94%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IWFL vs. INTW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
IWFL ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN	-3.75%	14.18%
INTW GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF	760.00%	60.89%

Correlation

The correlation between IWFL and INTW is 0.34, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.34
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 13, 2025	0.38

Return for Risk

IWFL vs. INTW — 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

INTW

INTW Risk / Return Rank: 98
INTW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
INTW Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
INTW Omega Ratio Rank: 95
INTW Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
INTW Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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. INTW - 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 GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW). 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	INTW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.61	12.22	-11.61
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.01	5.03	-4.02
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	1.64	-0.51
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.62	37.08	-36.46
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.92	84.02	-82.10

IWFL vs. INTW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWFL Sharpe Ratio is 0.61, which is lower than the INTW Sharpe Ratio of 12.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWFL and INTW, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

IWFL vs. INTW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWFL drawdown since its inception was -59.29%, roughly equal to the maximum INTW drawdown of -60.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWFL and INTW.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWFL	INTW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-59.29%	-60.58%	+1.29%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-32.80%	-49.34%	+16.54%
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%	-11.49%	-3.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-19.81%	-29.56%	+9.75%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.56%	21.73%	-11.17%

Volatility

IWFL vs. INTW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN (IWFL) is 10.98%, while GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW) has a volatility of 55.56%. This indicates that IWFL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than INTW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWFL	INTW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.98%	55.56%	-44.58%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	26.49%	119.04%	-92.55%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	33.29%	149.73%	-116.44%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	46.88%	148.46%	-101.58%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	46.23%	148.46%	-102.23%

IWFL vs. INTW - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWFL has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is lower than INTW's 1.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWFL vs. INTW - Dividend Comparison

Neither IWFL nor INTW has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWFL and INTW in my portfolio?

IWFL and INTW have a correlation of 0.34, 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 INTW?

INTW has higher volatility (55.56%) compared to IWFL (10.98%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWFL dropped -59.29% vs INTW's -60.58%.

Which ETF is better, IWFL or INTW?

On 1-year performance, INTW leads with 1806.94% vs 20.21% for IWFL. On fees, IWFL is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, IWFL has been the lower-risk option at 10.98%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWFL or INTW?

Over the 1-year period, INTW has performed better with a 1806.94% return vs 20.21%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWFL or INTW?

IWFL is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for INTW.

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

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

What is the main difference between IWFL and INTW?

They also come from different issuers: UBS and GraniteShares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for IWFL and 1.50% for INTW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

INTW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (12.22 vs 0.61), 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.