IWML vs. RBIL

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

IWML (ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN) and RBIL (F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWML is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index, while RBIL is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US Ultrashort TIPS 1-13 Months Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IWML returned 79.12% vs 3.95% for RBIL. At a correlation of -0.19, they often move in opposite directions. IWML charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.17%/yr for RBIL.

Performance

IWML vs. RBIL - 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 F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL). 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 higher than RBIL's 2.31% return.

IWML

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

RBIL

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: -0.20%
• YTD: 2.31%
• 6M: 2.35%
• 1Y: 3.95%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IWML vs. RBIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
IWML ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN	34.16%	16.76%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	2.31%	2.85%

Correlation

The correlation between IWML and RBIL is -0.22, 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	-0.22
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 25, 2025	-0.19

Return for Risk

IWML vs. RBIL — 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

RBIL

RBIL Risk / Return Rank: 97
RBIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
RBIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
RBIL Omega Ratio Rank: 98
RBIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
RBIL Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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. RBIL - 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 F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL). 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	RBIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.04	4.18	-2.14
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.68	6.39	-3.70
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	2.06	-0.74
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.50	7.59	-4.09
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.20	44.07	-31.87

IWML vs. RBIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWML Sharpe Ratio is 2.04, which is lower than the RBIL Sharpe Ratio of 4.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWML and RBIL, 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. RBIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWML drawdown since its inception was -60.06%, which is greater than RBIL's maximum drawdown of -0.52%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWML and RBIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWML	RBIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-60.06%	-0.52%	-59.54%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.75%	-0.52%	-22.23%
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	-3.51%	-0.51%	-3.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-31.63%	-0.07%	-31.56%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.51%	0.09%	+6.42%

Volatility

IWML vs. RBIL - Volatility Comparison

ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN (IWML) has a higher volatility of 11.01% compared to F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL) at 0.36%. This indicates that IWML's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RBIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWML	RBIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.01%	0.36%	+10.65%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	28.25%	0.85%	+27.40%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	39.07%	0.95%	+38.12%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	46.16%	1.07%	+45.09%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	46.13%	1.07%	+45.06%

IWML vs. RBIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWML has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than RBIL's 0.17% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWML vs. RBIL - Dividend Comparison

IWML has not paid dividends to shareholders, while RBIL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.38%.

Position	TTM	2025
IWML ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN	0.00%	0.00%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	4.38%	3.65%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWML and RBIL in my portfolio?

IWML and RBIL have a correlation of -0.22, 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 RBIL?

IWML has higher volatility (11.01%) compared to RBIL (0.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWML dropped -60.06% vs RBIL's -0.52%.

Which ETF is better, IWML or RBIL?

On 1-year performance, IWML leads with 79.12% vs 3.95% for RBIL. On fees, RBIL is cheaper at 0.17% per year. On volatility, RBIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWML or RBIL?

Over the 1-year period, IWML has performed better with a 79.12% return vs 3.95%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWML or RBIL?

RBIL is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for IWML.

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

RBIL has the higher dividend yield at 4.38%, compared with 0.00% for IWML.

What is the main difference between IWML and RBIL?

IWML is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while RBIL is Inflation-Protected Bonds. IWML tracks Russell 2000 Index, while RBIL tracks Bloomberg US Ultrashort TIPS 1-13 Months Index. They also come from different issuers: UBS and F/m. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for IWML and 0.17% for RBIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.18 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.