IWML vs. QYLD
Compare and contrast key facts about ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN (IWML) and Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD).
IWML and QYLD are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. IWML is a passively managed fund by UBS that tracks the performance of the Russell 2000 Index. It was launched on Feb 4, 2021. QYLD is a passively managed fund by Global X that tracks the performance of the CBOE NASDAQ-100 Buy Write V2. It was launched on Dec 12, 2013. Both IWML and QYLD are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Performance
IWML vs. QYLD - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
IWML vs. QYLD - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IWML ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN | -0.93% | 9.64% | 15.70% | 22.31% | -41.80% | 2.08% |
QYLD Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF | 0.02% | 9.28% | 19.35% | 22.77% | -19.08% | 6.42% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IWML achieves a -0.93% return, which is significantly lower than QYLD's 0.02% return.
IWML
- 1D
- 7.18%
- 1M
- -11.02%
- YTD
- -0.93%
- 6M
- 1.93%
- 1Y
- 36.13%
- 3Y*
- 14.29%
- 5Y*
- -2.35%
- 10Y*
- —
QYLD
- 1D
- 2.69%
- 1M
- -1.52%
- YTD
- 0.02%
- 6M
- 7.09%
- 1Y
- 16.31%
- 3Y*
- 12.97%
- 5Y*
- 6.88%
- 10Y*
- 8.89%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
IWML vs. QYLD - Expense Ratio Comparison
IWML has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than QYLD's 0.60% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
IWML vs. QYLD — Risk / Return Rank
IWML
QYLD
IWML vs. QYLD - 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 Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD). 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 | QYLD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 0.73 | 1.00 | -0.26 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 1.31 | 1.61 | -0.30 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.18 | 1.31 | -0.14 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.12 | 1.51 | -0.39 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.05 | 9.98 | -5.93 |
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 graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| IWML | QYLD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.73 | 1.00 | -0.26 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.05 | 0.47 | -0.52 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.58 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.04 | 0.55 | -0.59 |
Correlation
The correlation between IWML and QYLD is 0.65, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.
Dividends
IWML vs. QYLD - Dividend Comparison
IWML has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QYLD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 11.92%.
| 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% |
QYLD Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF | 11.92% | 11.55% | 12.50% | 11.78% | 13.75% | 12.85% | 11.16% | 9.84% | 12.44% | 7.69% | 9.15% | 9.42% |
Drawdowns
IWML vs. QYLD - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWML drawdown since its inception was -60.06%, which is greater than QYLD's maximum drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWML and QYLD.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| IWML | QYLD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -60.06% | -24.75% | -35.31% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -30.86% | -10.84% | -20.02% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -60.06% | -24.61% | -35.45% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -24.75% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -23.68% | -2.41% | -21.27% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -32.78% | -3.89% | -28.89% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 8.53% | 1.64% | +6.89% |
Volatility
IWML vs. QYLD - Volatility Comparison
ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN (IWML) has a higher volatility of 16.38% compared to Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD) at 4.90%. This indicates that IWML's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QYLD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| IWML | QYLD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 16.38% | 4.90% | +11.48% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 29.95% | 7.48% | +22.47% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 49.42% | 16.42% | +33.00% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 46.20% | 14.84% | +31.36% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 46.54% | 15.51% | +31.03% |