IWML vs. NRGU

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IWML (ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN) and NRGU (MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN) are both Leveraged Equities funds - IWML tracks the Russell 2000 Index while NRGU tracks the Solactive MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index (-300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IWML returned 78.21% vs 156.99% for NRGU. At a 0.16 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

IWML vs. NRGU - 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 MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN (NRGU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWML achieves a 32.65% return, which is significantly lower than NRGU's 129.31% return.

IWML

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

NRGU

• 1D: 2.53%
• 1M: -6.67%
• YTD: 129.31%
• 6M: 97.01%
• 1Y: 156.99%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IWML vs. NRGU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
IWML ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN	32.65%	7.10%
NRGU MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN	129.31%	-33.00%

Correlation

The correlation between IWML and NRGU is 0.01, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.01
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 21, 2025	0.16

The correlation between IWML and NRGU shifts across timeframes, from 0.01 (1 year) to 0.16 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

IWML vs. NRGU — 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

NRGU

NRGU Risk / Return Rank: 58
NRGU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
NRGU Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
NRGU Omega Ratio Rank: 48
NRGU Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
NRGU Martin Ratio Rank: 56

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. NRGU - 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 MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN (NRGU). 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	NRGU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.05	2.11	-0.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.72	2.43	+0.29
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.30	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.46	3.95	-0.50
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.11	9.88	+2.22
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IWML vs. NRGU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWML Sharpe Ratio is 2.05, which is comparable to the NRGU Sharpe Ratio of 2.11. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWML and NRGU, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	IWML	NRGU	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.05	2.11	-0.05
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	0.45	-0.37

Drawdowns

IWML vs. NRGU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWML drawdown since its inception was -60.06%, roughly equal to the maximum NRGU drawdown of -57.50%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWML and NRGU.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWML	NRGU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-60.06%	-57.50%	-2.56%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.75%	-39.95%	+17.20%
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%	-20.91%	+18.24%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-31.91%	-25.42%	-6.49%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.48%	15.96%	-9.48%

Volatility

IWML vs. NRGU - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN (IWML) is 9.79%, while MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN (NRGU) has a volatility of 31.63%. This indicates that IWML experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NRGU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWML	NRGU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.79%	31.63%	-21.84%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	27.49%	61.27%	-33.78%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	38.36%	75.15%	-36.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	46.08%	89.15%	-43.07%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	46.17%	89.15%	-42.98%

IWML vs. NRGU - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both IWML and NRGU have an expense ratio of 0.95%.

Dividends

IWML vs. NRGU - Dividend Comparison

Neither IWML nor NRGU has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWML and NRGU in my portfolio?

IWML and NRGU have a correlation of 0.01, 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 NRGU?

NRGU has higher volatility (31.63%) compared to IWML (9.79%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWML dropped -60.06% vs NRGU's -57.50%.

Which ETF is better, IWML or NRGU?

On 1-year performance, NRGU leads with 156.99% vs 78.21% for IWML. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, IWML has been the lower-risk option at 9.79%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWML or NRGU?

Over the 1-year period, NRGU has performed better with a 156.99% return vs 78.21%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWML or NRGU?

IWML and NRGU have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.

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

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

What is the main difference between IWML and NRGU?

IWML tracks Russell 2000 Index, while NRGU tracks Solactive MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index (-300%). They also come from different issuers: UBS and BMO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NRGU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.11 vs 2.05), 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.