IWML vs. INTW

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

IWML (ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN) and INTW (GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. IWML is passively managed, while INTW is actively managed. Over the past year, IWML returned 83.07% vs 1964.55% for INTW. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IWML charges 0.95%/yr vs 1.50%/yr for INTW.

Performance

IWML vs. INTW - 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 GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWML achieves a 39.21% return, which is significantly lower than INTW's 750.22% return.

IWML

• 1D: 3.76%
• 1M: 6.64%
• YTD: 39.21%
• 6M: 32.71%
• 1Y: 83.07%
• 3Y*: 27.63%
• 5Y*: 3.12%
• 10Y*: —

INTW

• 1D: -12.49%
• 1M: 12.21%
• YTD: 750.22%
• 6M: 775.58%
• 1Y: 1,964.55%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IWML vs. INTW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
IWML ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN	39.21%	7.76%
INTW GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF	750.22%	60.89%

Correlation

The correlation between IWML and INTW is 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.40
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 13, 2025	0.44

Return for Risk

IWML vs. INTW — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWML

IWML Risk / Return Rank: 69
IWML Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
IWML Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
IWML Omega Ratio Rank: 59
IWML Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
IWML Martin Ratio Rank: 74

INTW

INTW Risk / Return Rank: 98
INTW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
INTW Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
INTW Omega Ratio Rank: 94
INTW Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
INTW Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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. INTW - 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 GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW). 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	INTW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.13	13.25	-11.12
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.77	5.13	-2.36
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.65	-0.31
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.67	40.32	-36.65
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.81	91.49	-78.68

IWML vs. INTW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWML Sharpe Ratio is 2.13, which is lower than the INTW Sharpe Ratio of 13.25. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWML and INTW, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

IWML vs. INTW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWML drawdown since its inception was -60.06%, roughly equal to the maximum INTW drawdown of -60.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWML and INTW.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWML	INTW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-60.06%	-60.58%	+0.52%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.75%	-49.34%	+26.59%
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	0.00%	-12.49%	+12.49%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-31.60%	-29.66%	-1.94%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.51%	21.70%	-15.19%

Volatility

IWML vs. INTW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN (IWML) is 11.41%, while GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW) has a volatility of 55.81%. This indicates that IWML experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than INTW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWML	INTW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.41%	55.81%	-44.40%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	28.43%	119.10%	-90.67%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	39.15%	150.14%	-110.99%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	46.19%	148.88%	-102.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	46.14%	148.88%	-102.74%

IWML vs. INTW - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWML has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is lower than INTW's 1.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWML vs. INTW - Dividend Comparison

Neither IWML nor INTW has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWML and INTW in my portfolio?

IWML and INTW have a correlation of 0.40, 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 INTW?

INTW has higher volatility (55.81%) compared to IWML (11.41%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWML dropped -60.06% vs INTW's -60.58%.

Which ETF is better, IWML or INTW?

On 1-year performance, INTW leads with 1964.55% vs 83.07% for IWML. On fees, IWML is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, IWML has been the lower-risk option at 11.41%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWML or INTW?

Over the 1-year period, INTW has performed better with a 1964.55% return vs 83.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWML or INTW?

IWML is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for INTW.

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

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

What is the main difference between IWML and INTW?

They also come from different issuers: UBS and GraniteShares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for IWML and 1.50% for INTW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

INTW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (13.25 vs 2.13), 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.