IWML vs. WTIU

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IWML (ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN) and WTIU (MicroSectors Energy 3X Leveraged ETN) are both Leveraged Equities funds - IWML tracks the Russell 2000 Index while WTIU tracks the Solactive MicroSectors Energy Index - Benchmark TR Gross (--300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, IWML returned 25.01%/yr vs 5.93%/yr for WTIU. At a 0.30 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

IWML vs. WTIU - 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 Energy 3X Leveraged ETN (WTIU). 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 WTIU's 91.57% return.

IWML

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

WTIU

• 1D: 4.02%
• 1M: -7.74%
• YTD: 91.57%
• 6M: 66.33%
• 1Y: 103.25%
• 3Y*: 5.93%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IWML vs. WTIU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
IWML ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN	32.65%	9.64%	15.70%	0.25%
WTIU MicroSectors Energy 3X Leveraged ETN	91.57%	-17.13%	-29.63%	-28.42%

Correlation

The correlation between IWML and WTIU 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 (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.26
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 16, 2023	0.30

The correlation between IWML and WTIU shifts across timeframes, from -0.01 (1 year) to 0.30 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

IWML vs. WTIU — 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

WTIU

WTIU Risk / Return Rank: 43
WTIU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
WTIU Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
WTIU Omega Ratio Rank: 37
WTIU Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
WTIU Martin Ratio Rank: 41

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. WTIU - 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 Energy 3X Leveraged ETN (WTIU). 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	WTIU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.05	1.54	+0.51
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.72	2.00	+0.72
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.25	+0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.46	2.65	+0.80
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.11	6.55	+5.55
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. WTIU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWML Sharpe Ratio is 2.05, which is higher than the WTIU Sharpe Ratio of 1.54. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWML and WTIU, 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	WTIU	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.05	1.54	+0.51
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	-0.09	+0.18

Drawdowns

IWML vs. WTIU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWML drawdown since its inception was -60.06%, smaller than the maximum WTIU drawdown of -75.73%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWML and WTIU.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWML	WTIU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-60.06%	-75.73%	+15.67%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.75%	-39.11%	+16.36%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-51.82%	-75.73%	+23.91%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-60.06%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.67%	-32.10%	+29.43%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-31.91%	-39.19%	+7.28%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.48%	15.83%	-9.35%

Volatility

IWML vs. WTIU - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN (IWML) is 9.79%, while MicroSectors Energy 3X Leveraged ETN (WTIU) has a volatility of 27.06%. This indicates that IWML experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than WTIU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWML	WTIU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.79%	27.06%	-17.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	27.49%	54.98%	-27.49%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	38.36%	67.51%	-29.15%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	46.08%	70.62%	-24.54%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	46.17%	70.62%	-24.45%

IWML vs. WTIU - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

IWML vs. WTIU - Dividend Comparison

Neither IWML nor WTIU has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWML and WTIU in my portfolio?

IWML and WTIU 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 WTIU?

WTIU has higher volatility (27.06%) compared to IWML (9.79%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWML dropped -60.06% vs WTIU's -75.73%.

Which ETF is better, IWML or WTIU?

On 3-year performance, IWML leads with 25.01% vs 5.93% for WTIU. 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 WTIU?

Over the 3-year period, IWML has performed better with a 25.01% return vs 5.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWML or WTIU?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between IWML and WTIU?

IWML tracks Russell 2000 Index, while WTIU tracks Solactive MicroSectors Energy Index - Benchmark TR Gross (--300%). They also come from different issuers: UBS and REX.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWML currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.05 vs 1.54), 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.