QULL vs. IWFL
QULL (ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN) and IWFL (ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - QULL is a Quality Factor fund tracking the MSCI USA Sector Neutral Quality Index, while IWFL is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth (200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, QULL returned 14.44%/yr vs 12.16%/yr for IWFL. Their correlation of 0.89 means they have usually moved in the same direction. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.
Performance
QULL vs. IWFL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, QULL achieves a 18.31% return, which is significantly higher than IWFL's -3.79% return.
QULL
- 1D
- 0.63%
- 1M
- 0.26%
- 6M
- 14.62%
- YTD
- 18.31%
- 1Y
- 38.52%
- 3Y*
- 27.71%
- 5Y*
- 14.44%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 19.45%
IWFL
- 1D
- 2.19%
- 1M
- -4.76%
- 6M
- -0.09%
- YTD
- -3.79%
- 1Y
- 12.27%
- 3Y*
- 26.94%
- 5Y*
- 12.16%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 15.51%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $7.49K | $14.18K | $17.14K | |
| $1.11K | $1.49K | $2.54K |
QULL vs. IWFL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QULL ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN | 18.31% | 17.61% | 38.03% | 57.07% | -42.00% | 51.36% |
IWFL ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN | -3.79% | 18.54% | 61.94% | 84.47% | -55.71% | 46.03% |
Correlation
The correlation between QULL and IWFL is 0.76, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.76 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.84 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.89 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 5, 2021 | 0.89 |
The correlation between QULL and IWFL shifts across timeframes, from 0.76 (1 year) to 0.89 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
QULL vs. IWFL — Risk / Return Rank
QULL
IWFL
QULL vs. IWFL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN (QULL) and ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN (IWFL). 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.
| QULL | IWFL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.22 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.49 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.25 | 1.07 | +0.18 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.96 | 0.25 | +1.71 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 8.61 | 0.73 | +7.88 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
QULL vs. IWFL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum QULL drawdown since its inception was -51.83%, smaller than the maximum IWFL drawdown of -59.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QULL and IWFL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| QULL | IWFL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -51.83% | -59.29% | +7.46% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -18.43% | -32.80% | +14.37% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -36.82% | -46.84% | +10.02% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -51.83% | -59.29% | +7.46% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.05% | -15.19% | +14.14% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -13.70% | -19.68% | +5.98% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.19% | 11.34% | -7.15% |
Volatility
QULL vs. IWFL - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN (QULL) is 5.60%, while ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN (IWFL) has a volatility of 13.36%. This indicates that QULL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IWFL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| QULL | IWFL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.60% | 13.36% | -7.76% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 19.43% | 30.04% | -10.61% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 25.05% | 36.73% | -11.68% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 35.65% | 47.31% | -11.66% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 34.83% | 46.34% | -11.51% |
QULL vs. IWFL - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both QULL and IWFL have an expense ratio of 0.95%.
Dividends
QULL vs. IWFL - Dividend Comparison
Neither QULL nor IWFL has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
QULL and IWFL have a correlation of 0.76, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IWFL has higher volatility (13.36%) compared to QULL (5.60%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QULL dropped -51.83% vs IWFL's -59.29%.
On 5-year performance, QULL leads with 14.44% vs 12.16% for IWFL. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, QULL has been the lower-risk option at 5.60%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, QULL has performed better with a 14.44% return vs 12.16%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
QULL and IWFL have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.
QULL and IWFL have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
QULL is categorized as Quality Factor, while IWFL is Leveraged Equities. QULL tracks MSCI USA Sector Neutral Quality Index, while IWFL tracks Russell 1000 Growth (200%).
QULL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.45 vs 0.23), 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.
Find the right allocation for QULL and IWFL
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer