IWFL vs. RBIL

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

IWFL (ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN) and RBIL (F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWFL is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth (200%), while RBIL is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US Ultrashort TIPS 1-13 Months Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IWFL returned 27.71% vs 4.07% for RBIL. At a correlation of -0.17, they often move in opposite directions. IWFL charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.17%/yr for RBIL.

Performance

IWFL vs. RBIL - 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 F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL). 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 RBIL's 2.32% return.

IWFL

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

RBIL

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: -0.19%
• YTD: 2.32%
• 6M: 2.37%
• 1Y: 4.07%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IWFL vs. RBIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
IWFL ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN	-0.55%	20.05%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	2.32%	2.85%

Correlation

The correlation between IWFL and RBIL is -0.17, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.17
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 25, 2025	-0.17

Return for Risk

IWFL vs. RBIL — 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

RBIL

RBIL Risk / Return Rank: 97
RBIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
RBIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
RBIL Omega Ratio Rank: 98
RBIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
RBIL Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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. RBIL - 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 F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL). 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	RBIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.84	4.35	-3.51
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.27	6.69	-5.42
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.16	2.13	-0.97
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.85	7.82	-6.97
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.65	42.95	-40.30

IWFL vs. RBIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWFL Sharpe Ratio is 0.84, which is lower than the RBIL Sharpe Ratio of 4.35. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWFL and RBIL, 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. RBIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWFL drawdown since its inception was -59.29%, which is greater than RBIL's maximum drawdown of -0.52%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWFL and RBIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWFL	RBIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-59.29%	-0.52%	-58.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-32.80%	-0.52%	-32.28%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-46.84%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-59.29%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-12.34%	-0.50%	-11.84%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-19.82%	-0.07%	-19.75%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.49%	0.10%	+10.39%

Volatility

IWFL vs. RBIL - Volatility Comparison

ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN (IWFL) has a higher volatility of 10.92% compared to F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL) at 0.36%. This indicates that IWFL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RBIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWFL	RBIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.92%	0.36%	+10.56%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	26.51%	0.85%	+25.66%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	33.32%	0.95%	+32.37%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	46.86%	1.07%	+45.79%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	46.25%	1.07%	+45.18%

IWFL vs. RBIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWFL has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than RBIL's 0.17% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWFL vs. RBIL - Dividend Comparison

IWFL has not paid dividends to shareholders, while RBIL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.38%.

Position	TTM	2025
IWFL ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN	0.00%	0.00%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	4.38%	3.65%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWFL and RBIL in my portfolio?

IWFL and RBIL have a correlation of -0.17, 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 RBIL?

IWFL has higher volatility (10.92%) compared to RBIL (0.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWFL dropped -59.29% vs RBIL's -0.52%.

Which ETF is better, IWFL or RBIL?

On 1-year performance, IWFL leads with 27.71% vs 4.07% for RBIL. On fees, RBIL is cheaper at 0.17% per year. On volatility, RBIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWFL or RBIL?

Over the 1-year period, IWFL has performed better with a 27.71% return vs 4.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWFL or RBIL?

RBIL is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for IWFL.

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

RBIL has the higher dividend yield at 4.38%, compared with 0.00% for IWFL.

What is the main difference between IWFL and RBIL?

IWFL is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while RBIL is Inflation-Protected Bonds. IWFL tracks Russell 1000 Growth (200%), while RBIL tracks Bloomberg US Ultrashort TIPS 1-13 Months Index. They also come from different issuers: UBS and F/m. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for IWFL and 0.17% for RBIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.35 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.