IWFL vs. JLGMX
Compare and contrast key facts about ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN (IWFL) and JPMorgan Large Cap Growth Fund Class R6 (JLGMX).
IWFL is a passively managed fund by UBS that tracks the performance of the Russell 1000 Growth (200%). It was launched on Feb 5, 2021. JLGMX is a passively managed fund by JPMorgan that tracks the performance of the Russell 1000 Growth Index. It was launched on Nov 30, 2010. Both IWFL and JLGMX are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Performance
IWFL vs. JLGMX - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
IWFL vs. JLGMX - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IWFL ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN | -19.22% | 18.54% | 61.94% | 84.47% | -55.71% | 46.03% |
JLGMX JPMorgan Large Cap Growth Fund Class R6 | -8.48% | 14.38% | 35.40% | 34.95% | -25.20% | 11.20% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IWFL achieves a -19.22% return, which is significantly lower than JLGMX's -8.48% return.
IWFL
- 1D
- 2.15%
- 1M
- -7.96%
- YTD
- -19.22%
- 6M
- -19.55%
- 1Y
- 20.29%
- 3Y*
- 30.77%
- 5Y*
- 13.77%
- 10Y*
- —
JLGMX
- 1D
- 3.48%
- 1M
- -4.87%
- YTD
- -8.48%
- 6M
- -10.35%
- 1Y
- 12.67%
- 3Y*
- 20.55%
- 5Y*
- 10.71%
- 10Y*
- 18.24%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
IWFL vs. JLGMX - Expense Ratio Comparison
IWFL has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than JLGMX's 0.44% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
IWFL vs. JLGMX — Risk / Return Rank
IWFL
JLGMX
IWFL vs. JLGMX - 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 JPMorgan Large Cap Growth Fund Class R6 (JLGMX). 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 | JLGMX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 0.37 | 0.64 | -0.27 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 0.95 | 1.05 | -0.10 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.15 | 1.15 | 0.00 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.67 | 0.81 | -0.15 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.10 | 2.47 | -0.37 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| IWFL | JLGMX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.37 | 0.64 | -0.27 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.30 | 0.53 | -0.24 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.85 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.27 | 0.80 | -0.52 |
Correlation
The correlation between IWFL and JLGMX is 0.96, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Dividends
IWFL vs. JLGMX - Dividend Comparison
IWFL has not paid dividends to shareholders, while JLGMX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 12.06%.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
JLGMX JPMorgan Large Cap Growth Fund Class R6 | 12.06% | 11.04% | 2.12% | 0.31% | 3.49% | 14.25% | 5.14% | 12.65% | 15.59% | 14.44% | 9.71% | 4.43% |
Drawdowns
IWFL vs. JLGMX - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWFL drawdown since its inception was -59.29%, which is greater than JLGMX's maximum drawdown of -31.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWFL and JLGMX.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| IWFL | JLGMX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -59.29% | -31.82% | -27.47% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -32.80% | -16.73% | -16.07% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -59.29% | -31.13% | -28.16% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -31.82% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -25.44% | -13.83% | -11.61% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -20.34% | -5.82% | -14.52% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 10.42% | 5.51% | +4.91% |
Volatility
IWFL vs. JLGMX - Volatility Comparison
ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN (IWFL) has a higher volatility of 15.30% compared to JPMorgan Large Cap Growth Fund Class R6 (JLGMX) at 6.48%. This indicates that IWFL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than JLGMX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| IWFL | JLGMX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 15.30% | 6.48% | +8.82% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 27.03% | 12.54% | +14.49% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 55.74% | 21.14% | +34.60% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 46.76% | 20.25% | +26.51% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 46.77% | 21.54% | +25.23% |