IWML vs. IWM
IWML (ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWML is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IWML returned 3.12%/yr vs 6.27%/yr for IWM. With a 0.97 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. IWML charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.
Performance
IWML vs. IWM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IWML achieves a 39.21% return, which is significantly higher than IWM's 20.47% return.
IWML
- 1D
- 3.76%
- 1M
- 6.64%
- YTD
- 39.21%
- 6M
- 32.71%
- 1Y
- 83.07%
- 3Y*
- 27.63%
- 5Y*
- 3.12%
- 10Y*
- —
IWM
- 1D
- -0.96%
- 1M
- 3.82%
- YTD
- 20.47%
- 6M
- 17.64%
- 1Y
- 40.90%
- 3Y*
- 19.22%
- 5Y*
- 6.27%
- 10Y*
- 11.58%
IWML vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IWML ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN | 39.21% | 9.64% | 15.70% | 22.31% | -41.80% | 2.08% |
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 20.47% | 12.66% | 11.38% | 16.83% | -20.48% | 2.72% |
Correlation
The correlation between IWML and IWM is 0.90, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.90 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.95 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.97 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 5, 2021 | 0.97 |
The correlation between IWML and IWM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.
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. IWM — Risk / Return Rank
IWML
IWM
IWML vs. IWM - 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 Russell 2000 ETF (IWM). 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 | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.05 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.09 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.33 | 1.34 | -0.01 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.67 | 3.73 | -0.06 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 12.81 | 13.18 | -0.37 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IWML vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWML drawdown since its inception was -60.06%, roughly equal to the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWML and IWM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IWML | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -60.06% | -59.05% | -1.01% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -22.75% | -11.03% | -11.72% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -51.82% | -27.50% | -24.32% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -60.06% | -31.91% | -28.15% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -41.13% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -0.96% | +0.96% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -31.60% | -10.75% | -20.85% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 6.51% | 3.11% | +3.40% |
Volatility
IWML vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison
ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN (IWML) has a higher volatility of 11.41% compared to iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) at 6.56%. This indicates that IWML's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IWML | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 11.41% | 6.56% | +4.85% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 28.43% | 14.31% | +14.12% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 39.15% | 19.74% | +19.41% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 46.19% | 22.61% | +23.58% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 46.14% | 23.06% | +23.08% |
IWML vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison
IWML has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.
Dividends
IWML vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison
IWML has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.90%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 0.90% | 1.04% | 1.15% | 1.35% | 1.48% | 0.94% | 1.04% | 1.26% | 1.40% | 1.26% | 1.38% | 1.54% |
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 IWM have a correlation of 0.90, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IWML has higher volatility (11.41%) compared to IWM (6.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWML dropped -60.06% vs IWM's -59.05%.
On 5-year performance, IWM leads with 6.27% vs 3.12% for IWML. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, IWM has been the lower-risk option at 6.56%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, IWM has performed better with a 6.27% return vs 3.12%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IWM is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for IWML.
IWM has the higher dividend yield at 0.90%, compared with 0.00% for IWML.
IWML is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. Both ETFs track Russell 2000 Index. They also come from different issuers: UBS and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for IWML and 0.19% for IWM.
IWML currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.13 vs 2.08), 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 IWM
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