IWML vs. MSTZ

Last updated Jul 12, 2026

IWML (ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN) and MSTZ (T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWML is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index, while MSTZ is a Inverse Equities fund actively managed by REX. IWML is passively managed, while MSTZ is actively managed. Over the past year, IWML returned 68.70% vs 264.10% for MSTZ. At a correlation of -0.42, they often move in opposite directions. IWML charges 0.95%/yr vs 1.05%/yr for MSTZ.

Performance

IWML vs. MSTZ - 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 T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF (MSTZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWML achieves a 39.52% return, which is significantly higher than MSTZ's -26.97% return.

IWML

• 1D: -0.79%
• 1M: 2.12%
• 6M: 25.34%
• YTD: 39.52%
• 1Y: 68.70%
• 3Y*: 23.75%
• 5Y*: 4.11%
• 10Y*: —

MSTZ

• 1D: -1.53%
• 1M: 39.32%
• 6M: -19.19%
• YTD: -26.97%
• 1Y: 264.10%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IWML vs. MSTZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IWML ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN	39.52%	9.64%	0.88%
MSTZ T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF	-26.97%	-38.95%	-94.43%

Correlation

The correlation between IWML and MSTZ is -0.45, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.45
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 18, 2024	-0.42

Return for Risk

IWML vs. MSTZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWML

IWML Risk / Return Rank: 63
IWML Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
IWML Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
IWML Omega Ratio Rank: 55
IWML Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
IWML Martin Ratio Rank: 68

MSTZ

MSTZ Risk / Return Rank: 60
MSTZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
MSTZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
MSTZ Omega Ratio Rank: 63
MSTZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
MSTZ Martin Ratio Rank: 43

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. MSTZ - 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 T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF (MSTZ). 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	MSTZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.60	1.64	-0.03
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.27	2.34	-0.07
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.30	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.83	2.86	-0.03
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.89	5.59	+4.30

IWML vs. MSTZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWML Sharpe Ratio is 1.60, which is comparable to the MSTZ Sharpe Ratio of 1.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWML and MSTZ, 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. MSTZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWML drawdown since its inception was -60.06%, smaller than the maximum MSTZ drawdown of -99.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWML and MSTZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWML	MSTZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-60.06%	-99.38%	+39.32%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.75%	-84.89%	+62.14%
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	-1.95%	-97.51%	+95.56%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-31.34%	-94.53%	+63.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.52%	43.41%	-36.89%

Volatility

IWML vs. MSTZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN (IWML) is 13.74%, while T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF (MSTZ) has a volatility of 56.46%. This indicates that IWML experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MSTZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWML	MSTZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.74%	56.46%	-42.72%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	30.05%	135.20%	-105.15%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	40.20%	148.41%	-108.21%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	46.35%	171.17%	-124.82%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	46.20%	171.17%	-124.97%

IWML vs. MSTZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWML has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is lower than MSTZ's 1.05% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWML vs. MSTZ - Dividend Comparison

Neither IWML nor MSTZ has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWML and MSTZ in my portfolio?

IWML and MSTZ have a correlation of -0.45, 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 MSTZ?

MSTZ has higher volatility (56.46%) compared to IWML (13.74%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWML dropped -60.06% vs MSTZ's -99.38%.

Which ETF is better, IWML or MSTZ?

On 1-year performance, MSTZ leads with 264.10% vs 68.70% for IWML. On fees, IWML is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, IWML has been the lower-risk option at 13.74%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWML or MSTZ?

Over the 1-year period, MSTZ has performed better with a 264.10% return vs 68.70%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWML or MSTZ?

IWML is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.05% for MSTZ.

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

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

What is the main difference between IWML and MSTZ?

IWML is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while MSTZ is Inverse Equities. They also come from different issuers: UBS and REX. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for IWML and 1.05% for MSTZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MSTZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.64 vs 1.60), 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.