IWML vs. FBGX

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IWML (ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN) and FBGX (UBS AG FI Enhanced Large Cap Growth ETN) are both Leveraged Equities funds from UBS - IWML tracks the Russell 2000 Index while FBGX tracks the Russell 1000 Growth Index (200%). Both are passively managed. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IWML charges 0.95%/yr vs 1.29%/yr for FBGX.

Performance

IWML vs. FBGX - 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 UBS AG FI Enhanced Large Cap Growth ETN (FBGX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

IWML

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

FBGX

• 1D: —
• 1M: —
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IWML vs. FBGX - 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%
FBGX UBS AG FI Enhanced Large Cap Growth ETN	0.00%	0.00%	35.73%	83.74%	-56.41%	44.91%

Correlation

The correlation between IWML and FBGX is 0.54, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.29
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 8, 2021	0.54

The correlation between IWML and FBGX shifts across timeframes, from 0.29 (3 years) to 0.55 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

IWML vs. FBGX — 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. FBGX - 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 UBS AG FI Enhanced Large Cap Growth ETN (FBGX). 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	FBGX	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	FBGX	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	—	—

Drawdowns

Drawdown Indicators

	IWML	FBGX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-60.06%	—	—
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%	—	—
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-31.91%	—	—
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.48%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	IWML	FBGX	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%	—	—
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	46.08%	—	—
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	46.17%	—	—

IWML vs. FBGX - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWML has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is lower than FBGX's 1.29% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWML vs. FBGX - Dividend Comparison

Neither IWML nor FBGX has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWML and FBGX in my portfolio?

IWML and FBGX have a correlation of 0.54, 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 FBGX?

On fees, IWML is cheaper at 0.95% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWML or FBGX?

IWML is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.29% for FBGX.

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

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

What is the main difference between IWML and FBGX?

IWML tracks Russell 2000 Index, while FBGX tracks Russell 1000 Growth Index (200%). Their fees differ too: 0.95% for IWML and 1.29% for FBGX.