IWFL vs. QLD

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

IWFL (ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN) and QLD (ProShares Ultra QQQ) are both Leveraged Equities funds - IWFL tracks the Russell 1000 Growth (200%) while QLD tracks the NASDAQ-100 Index (200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IWFL returned 20.43%/yr vs 26.76%/yr for QLD. With a 0.97 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

IWFL vs. QLD - 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 ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD). 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 lower than QLD's 42.81% return.

IWFL

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

QLD

• 1D: 0.90%
• 1M: 21.71%
• YTD: 42.81%
• 6M: 38.79%
• 1Y: 89.44%
• 3Y*: 50.42%
• 5Y*: 26.76%
• 10Y*: 36.17%

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

IWFL vs. QLD - 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%
QLD ProShares Ultra QQQ	42.81%	30.36%	42.82%	117.72%	-60.52%	39.33%

Correlation

The correlation between IWFL and QLD is 0.93, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.93
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.95
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.97
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 8, 2021	0.97

The correlation between IWFL and QLD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

IWFL vs. QLD — 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

QLD

QLD Risk / Return Rank: 73
QLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
QLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
QLD Omega Ratio Rank: 70
QLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
QLD Martin Ratio Rank: 69

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. QLD - 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 ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD). 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	QLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.53	2.82	-1.29
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.01	3.26	-1.25
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.43	-0.16
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.52	3.67	-2.15
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	4.86	12.83	-7.96
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. QLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWFL Sharpe Ratio is 1.53, which is lower than the QLD Sharpe Ratio of 2.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWFL and QLD, 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	QLD	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.53	2.82	-1.29
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.44	0.60	-0.16
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.81	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.42	0.60	-0.17

Drawdowns

IWFL vs. QLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWFL drawdown since its inception was -59.29%, smaller than the maximum QLD drawdown of -83.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWFL and QLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWFL	QLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-59.29%	-83.13%	+23.84%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-32.80%	-25.13%	-7.67%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-46.84%	-42.29%	-4.55%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-59.29%	-63.68%	+4.39%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-63.68%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.80%	0.00%	-0.80%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-19.95%	-18.17%	-1.78%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.28%	7.20%	+3.08%

Volatility

IWFL vs. QLD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN (IWFL) is 6.11%, while ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) has a volatility of 8.87%. This indicates that IWFL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QLD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWFL	QLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.11%	8.87%	-2.76%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	25.11%	24.08%	+1.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	31.98%	31.86%	+0.12%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	46.68%	44.76%	+1.92%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	46.29%	44.57%	+1.72%

IWFL vs. QLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

IWFL vs. QLD - Dividend Comparison

IWFL has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QLD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.12%.

Position	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%
QLD ProShares Ultra QQQ	0.12%	0.17%	0.25%	0.33%	0.31%	0.00%	0.00%	0.13%	0.06%	0.02%	0.21%	0.11%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWFL and QLD in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, IWFL and QLD 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 QLD?

QLD has higher volatility (8.87%) compared to IWFL (6.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWFL dropped -59.29% vs QLD's -83.13%.

Which ETF is better, IWFL or QLD?

On 5-year performance, QLD leads with 26.76% vs 20.43% for IWFL. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, IWFL has been the lower-risk option at 6.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWFL or QLD?

Over the 5-year period, QLD has performed better with a 26.76% return vs 20.43%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWFL or QLD?

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

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

QLD has the higher dividend yield at 0.12%, compared with 0.00% for IWFL.

What is the main difference between IWFL and QLD?

IWFL tracks Russell 1000 Growth (200%), while QLD tracks NASDAQ-100 Index (200%). They also come from different issuers: UBS and ProShares.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.82 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.