IWFL vs. TSMG
IWFL (ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN) and TSMG (Leverage Shares 2X Long TSM Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. IWFL is passively managed, while TSMG is actively managed. Over the past year, IWFL returned 48.76% vs 327.45% for TSMG. A 0.65 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IWFL charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for TSMG.
Performance
IWFL vs. TSMG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IWFL achieves a 12.54% return, which is significantly lower than TSMG's 94.33% return.
IWFL
- 1D
- -0.80%
- 1M
- 12.28%
- YTD
- 12.54%
- 6M
- 10.59%
- 1Y
- 48.76%
- 3Y*
- 39.45%
- 5Y*
- 20.43%
- 10Y*
- —
TSMG
- 1D
- 4.98%
- 1M
- 23.80%
- YTD
- 94.33%
- 6M
- 108.01%
- 1Y
- 327.45%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IWFL vs. TSMG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
IWFL ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN | 12.54% | 22.82% |
TSMG Leverage Shares 2X Long TSM Daily ETF | 94.33% | 76.34% |
Correlation
The correlation between IWFL and TSMG is 0.60, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.60 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 15, 2025 | 0.65 |
The correlation between IWFL and TSMG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.60 to 0.65 - a consistent structural relationship.
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. TSMG — Risk / Return Rank
IWFL
TSMG
IWFL vs. TSMG - 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 Leverage Shares 2X Long TSM Daily ETF (TSMG). 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 | TSMG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 1.53 | 4.61 | -3.08 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 2.01 | 3.97 | -1.95 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.27 | 1.48 | -0.22 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.52 | 9.46 | -7.94 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.86 | 30.96 | -26.09 |
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 | TSMG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.53 | 4.61 | -3.08 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.44 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.42 | 1.79 | -1.37 |
Drawdowns
IWFL vs. TSMG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWFL drawdown since its inception was -59.29%, smaller than the maximum TSMG drawdown of -63.67%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWFL and TSMG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IWFL | TSMG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -59.29% | -63.67% | +4.38% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -32.80% | -35.29% | +2.49% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -46.84% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -59.29% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.80% | 0.00% | -0.80% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -19.95% | -17.02% | -2.93% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 10.28% | 10.79% | -0.51% |
Volatility
IWFL vs. TSMG - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN (IWFL) is 6.11%, while Leverage Shares 2X Long TSM Daily ETF (TSMG) has a volatility of 22.57%. This indicates that IWFL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than TSMG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IWFL | TSMG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.11% | 22.57% | -16.46% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 25.11% | 54.92% | -29.81% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 31.98% | 71.57% | -39.59% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 46.68% | 81.08% | -34.40% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 46.29% | 81.08% | -34.79% |
IWFL vs. TSMG - Expense Ratio Comparison
IWFL has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than TSMG's 0.75% expense ratio.
Dividends
IWFL vs. TSMG - Dividend Comparison
IWFL has not paid dividends to shareholders, while TSMG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.91%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
IWFL ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN | 0.00% | 0.00% |
TSMG Leverage Shares 2X Long TSM Daily ETF | 5.91% | 11.48% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IWFL and TSMG have a correlation of 0.60, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
TSMG has higher volatility (22.57%) compared to IWFL (6.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWFL dropped -59.29% vs TSMG's -63.67%.
On 1-year performance, TSMG leads with 327.45% vs 48.76% for IWFL. On fees, TSMG is cheaper at 0.75% 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 1-year period, TSMG has performed better with a 327.45% return vs 48.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
TSMG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for IWFL.
TSMG has the higher dividend yield at 5.91%, compared with 0.00% for IWFL.
They also come from different issuers: UBS and Leverage Shares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for IWFL and 0.75% for TSMG.
TSMG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.61 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.
Find the right allocation for IWFL and TSMG
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