IWFL vs. MLPR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

IWFL (ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN) and MLPR (ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Alerian MLP Index ETN) are both Leveraged Equities funds from UBS - IWFL tracks the Russell 1000 Growth (200%) while MLPR tracks the Alerian MLP Index (150%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IWFL returned 14.74%/yr vs 25.58%/yr for MLPR. At a 0.28 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

IWFL vs. MLPR - 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 ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Alerian MLP Index ETN (MLPR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWFL achieves a -0.55% return, which is significantly lower than MLPR's 24.85% return.

IWFL

• 1D: -2.52%
• 1M: -7.42%
• YTD: -0.55%
• 6M: -3.20%
• 1Y: 27.71%
• 3Y*: 32.31%
• 5Y*: 14.74%
• 10Y*: —

MLPR

• 1D: 2.97%
• 1M: -9.79%
• YTD: 24.85%
• 6M: 24.33%
• 1Y: 28.25%
• 3Y*: 31.47%
• 5Y*: 25.58%
• 10Y*: —

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

IWFL vs. MLPR - 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%
MLPR ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Alerian MLP Index ETN	24.85%	9.83%	31.57%	35.87%	41.04%	39.69%

Correlation

The correlation between IWFL and MLPR is -0.04, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.04
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.18
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.29
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 5, 2021	0.28

The correlation between IWFL and MLPR shifts across timeframes, from -0.04 (1 year) to 0.29 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

IWFL vs. MLPR — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWFL

IWFL Risk / Return Rank: 23
IWFL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
IWFL Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
IWFL Omega Ratio Rank: 25
IWFL Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
IWFL Martin Ratio Rank: 22

MLPR

MLPR Risk / Return Rank: 39
MLPR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
MLPR Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
MLPR Omega Ratio Rank: 37
MLPR Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
MLPR Martin Ratio Rank: 39

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. MLPR - 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 ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Alerian MLP Index ETN (MLPR). 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	MLPR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.84	1.35	-0.51
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.27	1.84	-0.57
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.16	1.24	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.85	2.03	-1.18
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.65	5.88	-3.23

IWFL vs. MLPR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWFL Sharpe Ratio is 0.84, which is lower than the MLPR Sharpe Ratio of 1.35. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWFL and MLPR, 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. MLPR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWFL drawdown since its inception was -59.29%, which is greater than MLPR's maximum drawdown of -48.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWFL and MLPR.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWFL	MLPR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-59.29%	-48.98%	-10.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-32.80%	-13.97%	-18.83%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-46.84%	-24.45%	-22.39%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-59.29%	-28.66%	-30.63%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-12.34%	-10.62%	-1.72%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-19.82%	-8.94%	-10.88%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.49%	4.82%	+5.67%

Volatility

IWFL vs. MLPR - Volatility Comparison

ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN (IWFL) has a higher volatility of 10.92% compared to ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Alerian MLP Index ETN (MLPR) at 8.29%. This indicates that IWFL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MLPR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWFL	MLPR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.92%	8.29%	+2.63%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	26.51%	15.56%	+10.95%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	33.32%	21.11%	+12.21%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	46.86%	29.40%	+17.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	46.25%	33.71%	+12.54%

IWFL vs. MLPR - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both IWFL and MLPR have an expense ratio of 0.95%.

Dividends

IWFL vs. MLPR - Dividend Comparison

IWFL has not paid dividends to shareholders, while MLPR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 9.36%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
IWFL ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
MLPR ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Alerian MLP Index ETN	9.36%	10.85%	9.57%	10.08%	7.49%	10.69%	4.21%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWFL and MLPR in my portfolio?

IWFL and MLPR have a correlation of -0.04, 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 MLPR?

IWFL has higher volatility (10.92%) compared to MLPR (8.29%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWFL dropped -59.29% vs MLPR's -48.98%.

Which ETF is better, IWFL or MLPR?

On 5-year performance, MLPR leads with 25.58% vs 14.74% for IWFL. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, MLPR has been the lower-risk option at 8.29%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWFL or MLPR?

Over the 5-year period, MLPR has performed better with a 25.58% return vs 14.74%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWFL or MLPR?

IWFL and MLPR have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.

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

MLPR has the higher dividend yield at 9.36%, compared with 0.00% for IWFL.

What is the main difference between IWFL and MLPR?

IWFL tracks Russell 1000 Growth (200%), while MLPR tracks Alerian MLP Index (150%).

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MLPR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.35 vs 0.84), 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.