IWML vs. IWMW
IWML (ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN) and IWMW (iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWML is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index, while IWMW is a Derivative Income fund tracking the Cboe FTSE Russell IWM 2% OTM BuyWrite Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IWML returned 78.21% vs 24.62% for IWMW. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IWML charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for IWMW.
Performance
IWML vs. IWMW - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IWML achieves a 32.65% return, which is significantly higher than IWMW's 8.49% return.
IWML
- 1D
- -2.04%
- 1M
- 6.57%
- YTD
- 32.65%
- 6M
- 29.46%
- 1Y
- 78.21%
- 3Y*
- 25.01%
- 5Y*
- 2.91%
- 10Y*
- —
IWMW
- 1D
- -0.34%
- 1M
- 3.04%
- YTD
- 8.49%
- 6M
- 8.94%
- 1Y
- 24.62%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IWML vs. IWMW - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
IWML ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN | 32.65% | 9.64% | 15.34% |
IWMW iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF | 8.49% | 7.82% | 6.09% |
Correlation
The correlation between IWML and IWMW is 0.84, 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 | 0.84 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 18, 2024 | 0.87 |
The correlation between IWML and IWMW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.84 to 0.87 - 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. IWMW — Risk / Return Rank
IWML
IWMW
IWML vs. IWMW - 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 BuyWrite ETF (IWMW). 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 | IWMW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.04 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.03 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.33 | 1.40 | -0.08 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.46 | 3.56 | -0.11 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 12.11 | 12.33 | -0.22 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| IWML | IWMW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.05 | 2.01 | +0.04 |
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 | 0.64 | -0.56 |
Drawdowns
IWML vs. IWMW - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWML drawdown since its inception was -60.06%, which is greater than IWMW's maximum drawdown of -21.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWML and IWMW.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IWML | IWMW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -60.06% | -21.82% | -38.24% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -22.75% | -6.94% | -15.81% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -51.82% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -60.06% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.67% | -0.34% | -2.33% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -31.91% | -3.85% | -28.06% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 6.48% | 2.00% | +4.48% |
Volatility
IWML vs. IWMW - Volatility Comparison
ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN (IWML) has a higher volatility of 9.79% compared to iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF (IWMW) at 3.03%. This indicates that IWML's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWMW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IWML | IWMW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 9.79% | 3.03% | +6.76% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 27.49% | 8.75% | +18.74% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 38.36% | 12.32% | +26.04% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 46.08% | 16.12% | +29.96% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 46.17% | 16.12% | +30.05% |
IWML vs. IWMW - Expense Ratio Comparison
IWML has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than IWMW's 0.39% expense ratio.
Dividends
IWML vs. IWMW - Dividend Comparison
IWML has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IWMW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 22.40%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|
IWML ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
IWMW iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF | 22.40% | 20.98% | 17.73% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IWML and IWMW have a correlation of 0.84, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IWML has higher volatility (9.79%) compared to IWMW (3.03%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWML dropped -60.06% vs IWMW's -21.82%.
On 1-year performance, IWML leads with 78.21% vs 24.62% for IWMW. On fees, IWMW is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, IWMW has been the lower-risk option at 3.03%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, IWML has performed better with a 78.21% return vs 24.62%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IWMW is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for IWML.
IWMW has the higher dividend yield at 22.40%, compared with 0.00% for IWML.
IWML is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while IWMW is Derivative Income. IWML tracks Russell 2000 Index, while IWMW tracks Cboe FTSE Russell IWM 2% OTM BuyWrite Index. They also come from different issuers: UBS and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for IWML and 0.39% for IWMW.
IWML currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.05 vs 2.01), 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 IWMW
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