IWFL vs. LQQ.PA

Last updated Jun 16, 2026

IWFL (ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN) and LQQ.PA (Lyxor UCITS NASDAQ-100 Daily Leverage) are both exchange-traded funds - IWFL is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth (200%), while LQQ.PA is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the Nasdaq 100® Leverage (2x) index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, IWFL returned 34.35%/yr vs 45.59%/yr for LQQ.PA. A 0.63 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IWFL charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for LQQ.PA.

Performance

IWFL vs. LQQ.PA - 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 Lyxor UCITS NASDAQ-100 Daily Leverage (LQQ.PA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

IWFL is traded in USD, while LQQ.PA is traded in EUR. To make them comparable, the LQQ.PA values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWFL achieves a 6.19% return, which is significantly lower than LQQ.PA's 38.52% return.

IWFL

• 1D: 4.15%
• 1M: 0.06%
• YTD: 6.19%
• 6M: 7.94%
• 1Y: 38.55%
• 3Y*: 34.35%
• 5Y*: 17.57%
• 10Y*: —

LQQ.PA

• 1D: 5.65%
• 1M: 7.74%
• YTD: 38.52%
• 6M: 40.94%
• 1Y: 81.81%
• 3Y*: 45.59%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IWFL vs. LQQ.PA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
IWFL ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN	6.19%	18.54%	61.94%	64.85%
LQQ.PA Lyxor UCITS NASDAQ-100 Daily Leverage	38.52%	29.49%	47.29%	82.44%

Correlation

The correlation between IWFL and LQQ.PA is 0.70, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.70
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.63
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 10, 2023	0.63

The correlation between IWFL and LQQ.PA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.63 to 0.70 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

IWFL vs. LQQ.PA — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

IWFL

IWFL Risk / Return Rank: 31
IWFL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
IWFL Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
IWFL Omega Ratio Rank: 34
IWFL Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
IWFL Martin Ratio Rank: 28

LQQ.PA

LQQ.PA Risk / Return Rank: 76
LQQ.PA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
LQQ.PA Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
LQQ.PA Omega Ratio Rank: 75
LQQ.PA Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
LQQ.PA Martin Ratio Rank: 67

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. LQQ.PA - 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 Lyxor UCITS NASDAQ-100 Daily Leverage (LQQ.PA). 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	LQQ.PA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.18	2.48	-1.30
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.64	3.10	-1.46
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.39	-0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.18	3.53	-2.35
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.72	11.73	-8.02

IWFL vs. LQQ.PA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWFL Sharpe Ratio is 1.18, which is lower than the LQQ.PA Sharpe Ratio of 2.48. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWFL and LQQ.PA, 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. LQQ.PA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWFL drawdown since its inception was -59.29%, which is greater than LQQ.PA's maximum drawdown of -42.34%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWFL and LQQ.PA.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWFL	LQQ.PA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-59.29%	-42.34%	-16.95%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-32.80%	-22.81%	-9.99%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-46.84%	-42.34%	-4.50%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-59.29%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.39%	-1.42%	-4.97%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-19.86%	-6.61%	-13.25%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.40%	6.90%	+3.50%

Volatility

IWFL vs. LQQ.PA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN (IWFL) is 10.15%, while Lyxor UCITS NASDAQ-100 Daily Leverage (LQQ.PA) has a volatility of 12.75%. This indicates that IWFL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LQQ.PA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWFL	LQQ.PA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.15%	12.75%	-2.60%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	26.55%	25.30%	+1.25%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	33.01%	32.54%	+0.47%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	46.80%	35.74%	+11.06%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	46.27%	35.74%	+10.53%

IWFL vs. LQQ.PA - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWFL has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than LQQ.PA's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWFL vs. LQQ.PA - Dividend Comparison

Neither IWFL nor LQQ.PA has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWFL and LQQ.PA in my portfolio?

IWFL and LQQ.PA have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, IWFL or LQQ.PA?

On fees, LQQ.PA is cheaper at 0.60% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWFL or LQQ.PA?

LQQ.PA is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for IWFL.

What is the main difference between IWFL and LQQ.PA?

IWFL is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while LQQ.PA is Nasdaq-100. IWFL tracks Russell 1000 Growth (200%), while LQQ.PA tracks Nasdaq 100® Leverage (2x) index. They also come from different issuers: UBS and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for IWFL and 0.60% for LQQ.PA.