IWFL vs. SMHB
IWFL (ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN) and SMHB (ETRACS 2xMonthly Pay Leveraged US Small Cap High Dividend ETN Series B) are both Leveraged Equities funds from UBS - IWFL tracks the Russell 1000 Growth (200%) while SMHB tracks the Solactive US Small Cap High Dividend Index (200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IWFL returned 20.43%/yr vs -6.15%/yr for SMHB. At a 0.46 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IWFL charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for SMHB.
Performance
IWFL vs. SMHB - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IWFL achieves a 12.54% return, which is significantly higher than SMHB's 7.28% return.
IWFL
- 1D
- -0.80%
- 1M
- 12.28%
- YTD
- 12.54%
- 6M
- 10.59%
- 1Y
- 48.76%
- 3Y*
- 39.45%
- 5Y*
- 20.43%
- 10Y*
- —
SMHB
- 1D
- -2.04%
- 1M
- -3.50%
- YTD
- 7.28%
- 6M
- 6.71%
- 1Y
- 17.29%
- 3Y*
- 9.84%
- 5Y*
- -6.15%
- 10Y*
- —
IWFL vs. SMHB - 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% |
SMHB ETRACS 2xMonthly Pay Leveraged US Small Cap High Dividend ETN Series B | 7.28% | -7.75% | -15.85% | 35.96% | -36.03% | 38.68% |
Correlation
The correlation between IWFL and SMHB is 0.35, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.35 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.34 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.47 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 8, 2021 | 0.46 |
The correlation between IWFL and SMHB shifts across timeframes, from 0.34 (3 years) to 0.47 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
IWFL vs. SMHB — Risk / Return Rank
IWFL
SMHB
IWFL vs. SMHB - 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 2xMonthly Pay Leveraged US Small Cap High Dividend ETN Series B (SMHB). 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 | SMHB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 1.53 | 0.45 | +1.09 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 2.01 | 0.90 | +1.12 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.27 | 1.10 | +0.16 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.52 | 0.52 | +1.00 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.86 | 1.27 | +3.59 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| IWFL | SMHB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.53 | 0.45 | +1.09 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.44 | -0.13 | +0.57 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.42 | -0.10 | +0.52 |
Drawdowns
IWFL vs. SMHB - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWFL drawdown since its inception was -59.29%, smaller than the maximum SMHB drawdown of -90.30%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWFL and SMHB.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IWFL | SMHB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -59.29% | -90.30% | +31.01% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -32.80% | -25.16% | -7.64% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -46.84% | -45.05% | -1.79% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -59.29% | -58.85% | -0.44% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.80% | -40.95% | +40.15% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -19.95% | -37.20% | +17.25% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 10.28% | 10.36% | -0.08% |
Volatility
IWFL vs. SMHB - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN (IWFL) is 6.11%, while ETRACS 2xMonthly Pay Leveraged US Small Cap High Dividend ETN Series B (SMHB) has a volatility of 7.80%. This indicates that IWFL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SMHB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IWFL | SMHB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.11% | 7.80% | -1.69% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 25.11% | 25.70% | -0.59% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 31.98% | 39.06% | -7.08% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 46.68% | 48.93% | -2.25% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 46.29% | 66.35% | -20.06% |
IWFL vs. SMHB - Expense Ratio Comparison
IWFL has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than SMHB's 0.85% expense ratio.
Dividends
IWFL vs. SMHB - Dividend Comparison
IWFL has not paid dividends to shareholders, while SMHB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 20.69%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
SMHB ETRACS 2xMonthly Pay Leveraged US Small Cap High Dividend ETN Series B | 20.69% | 22.22% | 21.95% | 15.27% | 24.18% | 12.22% | 16.86% | 19.97% | 0.91% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IWFL and SMHB have a correlation of 0.35, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
SMHB has higher volatility (7.80%) compared to IWFL (6.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWFL dropped -59.29% vs SMHB's -90.30%.
On 5-year performance, IWFL leads with 20.43% vs -6.15% for SMHB. On fees, SMHB is cheaper at 0.85% per year. 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.
Over the 5-year period, IWFL has performed better with a 20.43% return vs -6.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
SMHB is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for IWFL.
SMHB has the higher dividend yield at 20.69%, compared with 0.00% for IWFL.
IWFL tracks Russell 1000 Growth (200%), while SMHB tracks Solactive US Small Cap High Dividend Index (200%). Their fees differ too: 0.95% for IWFL and 0.85% for SMHB.
IWFL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.53 vs 0.45), 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.
Find the right allocation for IWFL and SMHB
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer