IWML vs. COMT
IWML (ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN) and COMT (iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWML is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index, while COMT is a Commodities fund tracking the S&P GSCI Dynamic Roll (USD) Total Return Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IWML returned 5.22%/yr vs 11.85%/yr for COMT. Their 0.15 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. IWML charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.48%/yr for COMT.
Performance
IWML vs. COMT - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IWML achieves a 42.80% return, which is significantly higher than COMT's 29.49% return.
IWML
- 1D
- 2.53%
- 1M
- 0.62%
- 6M
- 28.43%
- YTD
- 42.80%
- 1Y
- 74.39%
- 3Y*
- 23.00%
- 5Y*
- 5.22%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 5.13%
COMT
- 1D
- 0.65%
- 1M
- 5.25%
- 6M
- 19.23%
- YTD
- 29.49%
- 1Y
- 33.46%
- 3Y*
- 10.63%
- 5Y*
- 11.85%
- 10Y*
- 8.63%
- ALL TIME*
- 3.30%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $6.13M | $10.19M | $11.89M | |
| $3.78K | $3.52K | $16.81K |
IWML vs. COMT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IWML ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN | 42.80% | 9.64% | 15.70% | 22.31% | -41.80% | 2.08% |
COMT iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF | 29.49% | 6.07% | 5.96% | -6.56% | 19.45% | 28.50% |
Correlation
The correlation between IWML and COMT is -0.23, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | -0.23 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.01 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.14 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 5, 2021 | 0.15 |
The correlation between IWML and COMT shifts across timeframes, from -0.23 (1 year) to 0.15 (all time), 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
IWML vs. COMT — Risk / Return Rank
IWML
COMT
IWML vs. COMT - 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 iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF (COMT). 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.
| IWML | COMT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.33 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.41 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.31 | 1.27 | +0.04 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.29 | 1.91 | +1.37 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 11.53 | 5.84 | +5.69 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IWML vs. COMT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWML drawdown since its inception was -60.06%, which is greater than COMT's maximum drawdown of -51.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWML and COMT.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IWML | COMT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -60.06% | -51.89% | -8.17% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -22.75% | -17.57% | -5.18% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -51.82% | -17.57% | -34.25% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -60.06% | -29.00% | -31.06% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -39.22% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -11.75% | +11.75% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -30.98% | -23.89% | -7.09% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 6.47% | 5.75% | +0.72% |
Volatility
IWML vs. COMT - Volatility Comparison
ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN (IWML) has a higher volatility of 8.49% compared to iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF (COMT) at 5.13%. This indicates that IWML's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than COMT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IWML | COMT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 8.49% | 5.13% | +3.36% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 29.66% | 18.95% | +10.71% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 39.81% | 21.64% | +18.17% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 46.18% | 21.09% | +25.09% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 46.02% | 18.86% | +27.16% |
IWML vs. COMT - Expense Ratio Comparison
IWML has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than COMT's 0.48% expense ratio.
Dividends
IWML vs. COMT - Dividend Comparison
IWML has not paid dividends to shareholders, while COMT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.98%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
COMT iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF | 5.98% | 7.74% | 4.90% | 5.19% | 29.79% | 17.79% | 0.36% | 2.61% | 11.65% | 5.16% | 0.52% | 1.44% |
IWML ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IWML and COMT have a correlation of -0.23, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IWML has higher volatility (8.49%) compared to COMT (5.13%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWML dropped -60.06% vs COMT's -51.89%.
On 5-year performance, COMT leads with 11.85% vs 5.22% for IWML. On fees, COMT is cheaper at 0.48% per year. On volatility, COMT has been the lower-risk option at 5.13%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, COMT has performed better with a 11.85% return vs 5.22%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
COMT is cheaper with a 0.48% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for IWML.
COMT has the higher dividend yield at 5.98%, compared with 0.00% for IWML.
IWML is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while COMT is Commodities. IWML tracks Russell 2000 Index, while COMT tracks S&P GSCI Dynamic Roll (USD) Total Return Index. They also come from different issuers: UBS and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for IWML and 0.48% for COMT.
IWML currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.88 vs 1.55), 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 IWML and COMT
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