IWML vs. QLD

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

IWML (ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN) and QLD (ProShares Ultra QQQ) are both Leveraged Equities funds - IWML tracks the Russell 2000 Index while QLD tracks the NASDAQ-100 Index (200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IWML returned 2.86%/yr vs 23.39%/yr for QLD. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

IWML vs. QLD - 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 ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWML achieves a 34.16% return, which is significantly lower than QLD's 38.76% return.

IWML

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 2.77%
• YTD: 34.16%
• 6M: 26.53%
• 1Y: 79.12%
• 3Y*: 26.07%
• 5Y*: 2.86%
• 10Y*: —

QLD

• 1D: -0.23%
• 1M: 4.92%
• YTD: 38.76%
• 6M: 36.36%
• 1Y: 82.33%
• 3Y*: 46.92%
• 5Y*: 23.39%
• 10Y*: 37.21%

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

IWML vs. QLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
IWML ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN	34.16%	9.64%	15.70%	22.31%	-41.80%	2.08%
QLD ProShares Ultra QQQ	38.76%	30.36%	42.82%	117.72%	-60.52%	40.31%

Correlation

The correlation between IWML and QLD is 0.65, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.65
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.63
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.70
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 5, 2021	0.69

The correlation between IWML and QLD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.63 to 0.70 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

IWML vs. QLD — 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: 64
IWML Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
IWML Omega Ratio Rank: 53
IWML Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
IWML Martin Ratio Rank: 68

QLD

QLD Risk / Return Rank: 67
QLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
QLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
QLD Omega Ratio Rank: 65
QLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
QLD Martin Ratio Rank: 63

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. QLD - 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 ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD). 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	QLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.04	2.36	-0.32
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.68	2.79	-0.10
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.37	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.50	3.29	+0.20
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.20	11.19	+1.01

IWML vs. QLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWML Sharpe Ratio is 2.04, which is comparable to the QLD Sharpe Ratio of 2.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWML and QLD, 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. QLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWML drawdown since its inception was -60.06%, smaller than the maximum QLD drawdown of -83.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWML and QLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWML	QLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-60.06%	-83.13%	+23.07%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.75%	-25.13%	+2.38%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-51.82%	-42.29%	-9.53%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-60.06%	-63.68%	+3.62%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-63.68%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.51%	-2.83%	-0.68%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-31.63%	-18.14%	-13.49%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.51%	7.38%	-0.87%

Volatility

IWML vs. QLD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN (IWML) is 11.01%, while ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) has a volatility of 16.77%. This indicates that IWML experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QLD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWML	QLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.01%	16.77%	-5.76%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	28.25%	28.19%	+0.06%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	39.07%	35.17%	+3.90%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	46.16%	45.24%	+0.92%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	46.13%	44.82%	+1.31%

IWML vs. QLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

IWML vs. QLD - Dividend Comparison

IWML has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QLD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.12%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
QLD ProShares Ultra QQQ	0.12%	0.17%	0.25%	0.33%	0.31%	0.00%	0.00%	0.13%	0.06%	0.02%	0.21%	0.11%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWML and QLD in my portfolio?

IWML and QLD have a correlation of 0.65, 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 QLD?

QLD has higher volatility (16.77%) compared to IWML (11.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWML dropped -60.06% vs QLD's -83.13%.

Which ETF is better, IWML or QLD?

On 5-year performance, QLD leads with 23.39% vs 2.86% for IWML. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, IWML has been the lower-risk option at 11.01%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWML or QLD?

Over the 5-year period, QLD has performed better with a 23.39% return vs 2.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWML or QLD?

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

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

QLD has the higher dividend yield at 0.12%, compared with 0.00% for IWML.

What is the main difference between IWML and QLD?

IWML tracks Russell 2000 Index, while QLD tracks NASDAQ-100 Index (200%). They also come from different issuers: UBS and ProShares.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.36 vs 2.04), 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.