IWMW vs. IWML

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

IWMW (iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF) and IWML (ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - IWMW is a Derivative Income fund tracking the Cboe FTSE Russell IWM 2% OTM BuyWrite Index, while IWML is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IWMW returned 25.46% vs 83.07% for IWML. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IWMW charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for IWML.

Performance

IWMW vs. IWML - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF (IWMW) and ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN (IWML). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWMW achieves a 11.78% return, which is significantly lower than IWML's 39.21% return.

IWMW

• 1D: -0.44%
• 1M: 4.25%
• YTD: 11.78%
• 6M: 10.58%
• 1Y: 25.46%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IWML

• 1D: 3.76%
• 1M: 6.64%
• YTD: 39.21%
• 6M: 32.71%
• 1Y: 83.07%
• 3Y*: 27.63%
• 5Y*: 3.12%
• 10Y*: —

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

IWMW vs. IWML - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IWMW iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF	11.78%	7.82%	5.85%
IWML ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN	39.21%	9.64%	16.04%

Correlation

The correlation between IWMW and IWML is 0.82, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 15, 2024	0.86

The correlation between IWMW and IWML has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

IWMW vs. IWML — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

IWMW

IWMW Risk / Return Rank: 70
IWMW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
IWMW Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
IWMW Omega Ratio Rank: 74
IWMW Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
IWMW Martin Ratio Rank: 72

IWML

IWML Risk / Return Rank: 69
IWML Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
IWML Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
IWML Omega Ratio Rank: 59
IWML Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
IWML Martin Ratio Rank: 74

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.

IWMW vs. IWML - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF (IWMW) and ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN (IWML). 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.

	IWMW	IWML	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.05	2.13	-0.09
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.79	2.77	+0.01
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.33	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.68	3.67	+0.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.71	12.81	-0.10

IWMW vs. IWML - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWMW Sharpe Ratio is 2.05, which is comparable to the IWML Sharpe Ratio of 2.13. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWMW and IWML, 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

IWMW vs. IWML - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWMW drawdown since its inception was -21.82%, smaller than the maximum IWML drawdown of -60.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWMW and IWML.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWMW	IWML	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.82%	-60.06%	+38.24%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.94%	-22.75%	+15.81%
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	-0.44%	0.00%	-0.44%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.76%	-31.60%	+27.84%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.01%	6.51%	-4.50%

Volatility

IWMW vs. IWML - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF (IWMW) is 3.43%, while ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN (IWML) has a volatility of 11.41%. This indicates that IWMW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IWML based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWMW	IWML	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.43%	11.41%	-7.98%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.31%	28.43%	-19.12%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.50%	39.15%	-26.65%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.06%	46.19%	-30.13%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.06%	46.14%	-30.08%

IWMW vs. IWML - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWMW has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than IWML's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWMW vs. IWML - Dividend Comparison

IWMW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 21.74%, while IWML has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
IWML ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Size Factor TR ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
IWMW iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF	21.74%	20.98%	17.73%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWMW and IWML in my portfolio?

IWMW and IWML have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IWMW or IWML?

IWML has higher volatility (11.41%) compared to IWMW (3.43%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWMW dropped -21.82% vs IWML's -60.06%.

Which ETF is better, IWMW or IWML?

On 1-year performance, IWML leads with 83.07% vs 25.46% for IWMW. On fees, IWMW is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, IWMW has been the lower-risk option at 3.43%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWMW or IWML?

Over the 1-year period, IWML has performed better with a 83.07% return vs 25.46%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWMW or IWML?

IWMW is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for IWML.

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

IWMW has the higher dividend yield at 21.74%, compared with 0.00% for IWML.

What is the main difference between IWMW and IWML?

IWMW is categorized as Derivative Income, while IWML is Leveraged Equities. IWMW tracks Cboe FTSE Russell IWM 2% OTM BuyWrite Index, while IWML tracks Russell 2000 Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and UBS. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for IWMW and 0.95% for IWML.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWML currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.13 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.