IWML vs. COTG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IWML (ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN) and COTG (Leverage Shares 2X Long COST Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. IWML is passively managed, while COTG is actively managed. At a correlation of -0.06, they often move in opposite directions. IWML charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for COTG.

Performance

IWML vs. COTG - 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 Leverage Shares 2X Long COST Daily ETF (COTG). 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 COTG's 17.32% return.

IWML

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

COTG

• 1D: 1.39%
• 1M: -11.21%
• YTD: 17.32%
• 6M: 1.51%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IWML vs. COTG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
IWML ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN	32.65%	0.10%
COTG Leverage Shares 2X Long COST Daily ETF	17.32%	-21.71%

Correlation

The correlation between IWML and COTG is -0.06, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 19, 2025	-0.06

Return for Risk

IWML vs. COTG — 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

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. COTG - 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 Leverage Shares 2X Long COST Daily ETF (COTG). 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	COTG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.05	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.72	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.46	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.11	—	—
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	IWML	COTG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.05	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.06	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.08	-0.28	+0.36

Drawdowns

IWML vs. COTG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWML drawdown since its inception was -60.06%, which is greater than COTG's maximum drawdown of -25.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWML and COTG.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWML	COTG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-60.06%	-25.69%	-34.37%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.75%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-51.82%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-60.06%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.67%	-23.48%	+20.81%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-31.91%	-8.35%	-23.56%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.48%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	IWML	COTG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.79%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	27.49%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	38.36%	40.65%	-2.29%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	46.08%	40.65%	+5.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	46.17%	40.65%	+5.52%

IWML vs. COTG - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWML has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than COTG's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWML vs. COTG - Dividend Comparison

Neither IWML nor COTG has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWML and COTG in my portfolio?

IWML and COTG have a correlation of -0.06, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, IWML or COTG?

On fees, COTG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWML or COTG?

COTG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for IWML.

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

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

What is the main difference between IWML and COTG?

They also come from different issuers: UBS and Leverage Shares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for IWML and 0.75% for COTG.