IWML vs. AMUB

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IWML (ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN) and AMUB (ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B) are both exchange-traded funds - IWML is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index, while AMUB is a MLPs fund tracking the Alerian MLP Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IWML returned 2.91%/yr vs 12.34%/yr for AMUB. At a 0.48 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IWML charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.80%/yr for AMUB.

Performance

IWML vs. AMUB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN (IWML) and ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B (AMUB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWML achieves a 32.65% return, which is significantly higher than AMUB's 16.97% return.

IWML

• 1D: -2.04%
• 1M: 6.57%
• YTD: 32.65%
• 6M: 29.46%
• 1Y: 78.21%
• 3Y*: 25.01%
• 5Y*: 2.91%
• 10Y*: —

AMUB

• 1D: -0.23%
• 1M: -2.08%
• YTD: 16.97%
• 6M: 15.25%
• 1Y: 15.77%
• 3Y*: 15.80%
• 5Y*: 12.34%
• 10Y*: 3.05%

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

IWML vs. AMUB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
IWML ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN	32.65%	9.64%	15.70%	22.31%	-41.80%	2.08%
AMUB ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B	16.97%	2.05%	15.68%	16.89%	21.91%	17.20%

Correlation

The correlation between IWML and AMUB is 0.10, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.10
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.37
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.48
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 8, 2021	0.48

Over the past year, the correlation between IWML and AMUB has dropped to 0.10 - well below their long-term average of 0.48, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

Return for Risk

IWML vs. AMUB — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

IWML

IWML Risk / Return Rank: 62
IWML Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
IWML Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
IWML Omega Ratio Rank: 53
IWML Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
IWML Martin Ratio Rank: 67

AMUB

AMUB Risk / Return Rank: 31
AMUB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 32
AMUB Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
AMUB Omega Ratio Rank: 30
AMUB Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
AMUB Martin Ratio Rank: 31

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.

IWML vs. AMUB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN (IWML) and ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B (AMUB). 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.

	IWML	AMUB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.05	1.18	+0.88
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.72	1.69	+1.04
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.20	+0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.46	1.53	+1.92
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.11	4.52	+7.58
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IWML vs. AMUB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWML Sharpe Ratio is 2.05, which is higher than the AMUB Sharpe Ratio of 1.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWML and AMUB, 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

	IWML	AMUB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.05	1.18	+0.88
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.06	0.61	-0.55
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.11	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.08	0.00	+0.08

Drawdowns

IWML vs. AMUB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWML drawdown since its inception was -60.06%, smaller than the maximum AMUB drawdown of -79.46%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWML and AMUB.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWML	AMUB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-60.06%	-79.46%	+19.40%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.75%	-10.37%	-12.38%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-51.82%	-17.22%	-34.60%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-60.06%	-20.58%	-39.48%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-78.86%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.67%	-6.15%	+3.48%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-31.91%	-29.23%	-2.68%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.48%	3.51%	+2.97%

Volatility

IWML vs. AMUB - Volatility Comparison

ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN (IWML) has a higher volatility of 9.79% compared to ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B (AMUB) at 5.40%. This indicates that IWML's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than AMUB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWML	AMUB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.79%	5.40%	+4.39%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	27.49%	9.82%	+17.67%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	38.36%	13.60%	+24.76%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	46.08%	20.24%	+25.84%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	46.17%	27.09%	+19.08%

IWML vs. AMUB - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWML has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than AMUB's 0.80% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWML vs. AMUB - Dividend Comparison

Neither IWML nor AMUB has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWML and AMUB in my portfolio?

IWML and AMUB have a correlation of 0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IWML or AMUB?

IWML has higher volatility (9.79%) compared to AMUB (5.40%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWML dropped -60.06% vs AMUB's -79.46%.

Which ETF is better, IWML or AMUB?

On 5-year performance, AMUB leads with 12.34% vs 2.91% for IWML. On fees, AMUB is cheaper at 0.80% per year. On volatility, AMUB has been the lower-risk option at 5.40%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWML or AMUB?

Over the 5-year period, AMUB has performed better with a 12.34% return vs 2.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWML or AMUB?

AMUB is cheaper with a 0.80% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for IWML.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IWML or AMUB?

IWML and AMUB have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between IWML and AMUB?

IWML is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while AMUB is MLPs. IWML tracks Russell 2000 Index, while AMUB tracks Alerian MLP Index. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for IWML and 0.80% for AMUB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWML currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.05 vs 1.18), 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.