IWFL vs. IWF

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

IWFL (ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN) and IWF (iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWFL is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth (200%), while IWF is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IWFL returned 20.43%/yr vs 15.86%/yr for IWF. With a 0.98 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. IWFL charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWF.

Performance

IWFL vs. IWF - 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 iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF). 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 IWF's 8.52% return.

IWFL

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

IWF

• 1D: -0.37%
• 1M: 6.86%
• YTD: 8.52%
• 6M: 7.80%
• 1Y: 28.15%
• 3Y*: 25.35%
• 5Y*: 15.86%
• 10Y*: 18.64%

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

IWFL vs. IWF - 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%
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF	8.52%	18.33%	33.12%	42.59%	-29.31%	22.21%

Correlation

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

Return for Risk

IWFL vs. IWF — 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

IWF

IWF Risk / Return Rank: 45
IWF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
IWF Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
IWF Omega Ratio Rank: 51
IWF Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
IWF Martin Ratio Rank: 37

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. IWF - 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 iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF). 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	IWF	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.53	1.84	-0.31
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.01	2.50	-0.48
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.32	-0.05
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.52	1.78	-0.26
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	4.86	5.96	-1.10
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. IWF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWFL Sharpe Ratio is 1.53, which is comparable to the IWF Sharpe Ratio of 1.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWFL and IWF, 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	IWF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.53	1.84	-0.31
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.44	0.75	-0.31
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.89	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.42	0.40	+0.02

Drawdowns

IWFL vs. IWF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWFL drawdown since its inception was -59.29%, smaller than the maximum IWF drawdown of -64.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWFL and IWF.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWFL	IWF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-59.29%	-64.25%	+4.96%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-32.80%	-16.27%	-16.53%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-46.84%	-23.36%	-23.48%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-59.29%	-32.72%	-26.57%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-32.72%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.80%	-0.37%	-0.43%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-19.95%	-22.09%	+2.14%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.28%	4.86%	+5.42%

Volatility

IWFL vs. IWF - Volatility Comparison

ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN (IWFL) has a higher volatility of 6.11% compared to iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) at 3.26%. This indicates that IWFL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWFL	IWF	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%	15.39%	+16.59%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	46.68%	21.39%	+25.29%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	46.29%	20.97%	+25.32%

IWFL vs. IWF - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWFL has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than IWF's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWFL vs. IWF - Dividend Comparison

IWFL has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IWF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.33%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF	0.33%	0.36%	0.46%	0.67%	0.91%	0.49%	0.66%	0.99%	1.27%	1.10%	1.43%	1.37%
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

Can I hold both IWFL and IWF in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.98, IWFL and IWF 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 IWF?

IWFL has higher volatility (6.11%) compared to IWF (3.26%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWFL dropped -59.29% vs IWF's -64.25%.

Which ETF is better, IWFL or IWF?

On 5-year performance, IWFL leads with 20.43% vs 15.86% for IWF. On fees, IWF is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, IWF has been the lower-risk option at 3.26%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWFL or IWF?

Over the 5-year period, IWFL has performed better with a 20.43% return vs 15.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWFL or IWF?

IWF is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for IWFL.

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

IWF has the higher dividend yield at 0.33%, compared with 0.00% for IWFL.

What is the main difference between IWFL and IWF?

IWFL is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while IWF is Large Cap Growth Equities. IWFL tracks Russell 1000 Growth (200%), while IWF tracks Russell 1000 Growth Index. They also come from different issuers: UBS and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for IWFL and 0.19% for IWF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.84 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.