IWFL vs. QULL
Compare and contrast key facts about ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN (IWFL) and ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN (QULL).
IWFL and QULL are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. 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. QULL is a passively managed fund by UBS that tracks the performance of the MSCI USA Sector Neutral Quality Index. It was launched on Feb 5, 2021. Both IWFL and QULL are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: IWFL or QULL.
Key characteristics
| IWFL | QULL | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 60.66% | 48.05% |
| 1Y Return | 83.81% | 68.39% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | 10.01% | 10.69% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 2.16 | 2.69 |
| Sortino Ratio | 2.64 | 3.36 |
| Omega Ratio | 1.38 | 1.45 |
| Calmar Ratio | 2.76 | 3.27 |
| Martin Ratio | 11.72 | 16.65 |
| Ulcer Index | 7.12% | 4.08% |
| Daily Std Dev | 38.58% | 25.24% |
| Max Drawdown | -59.29% | -51.83% |
| Current Drawdown | 0.00% | -2.39% |
Correlation
The correlation between IWFL and QULL is 0.92, 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.
Performance
IWFL vs. QULL - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, IWFL achieves a 60.66% return, which is significantly higher than QULL's 48.05% return. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
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. QULL - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both IWFL and QULL have an expense ratio of 0.95%.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
IWFL vs. QULL - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN (IWFL) and ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN (QULL). 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.
Dividends
IWFL vs. QULL - Dividend Comparison
Neither IWFL nor QULL has paid dividends to shareholders.
Drawdowns
IWFL vs. QULL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWFL drawdown since its inception was -59.29%, which is greater than QULL's maximum drawdown of -51.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWFL and QULL. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
IWFL vs. QULL - Volatility Comparison
ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN (IWFL) has a higher volatility of 14.32% compared to ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN (QULL) at 7.83%. This indicates that IWFL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QULL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.