QULL vs. IWFL

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

QULL (ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN) and IWFL (ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN) are both Leveraged Equities funds from UBS - QULL tracks the MSCI USA Sector Neutral Quality Index while IWFL tracks the Russell 1000 Growth (200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, QULL returned 15.31%/yr vs 14.74%/yr for IWFL. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

QULL vs. IWFL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN (QULL) and ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN (IWFL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QULL achieves a 12.45% return, which is significantly higher than IWFL's -0.55% return.

QULL

• 1D: -2.24%
• 1M: -1.05%
• YTD: 12.45%
• 6M: 10.61%
• 1Y: 37.24%
• 3Y*: 30.07%
• 5Y*: 15.31%
• 10Y*: —

IWFL

• 1D: -2.52%
• 1M: -7.42%
• YTD: -0.55%
• 6M: -3.20%
• 1Y: 27.71%
• 3Y*: 32.31%
• 5Y*: 14.74%
• 10Y*: —

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

QULL vs. IWFL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
QULL ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN	12.45%	17.61%	38.03%	57.07%	-42.00%	51.36%
IWFL ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN	-0.55%	18.54%	61.94%	84.47%	-55.71%	46.03%

Correlation

The correlation between QULL and IWFL is 0.80, 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	0.80
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.86
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 5, 2021	0.90

The correlation between QULL and IWFL shifts across timeframes, from 0.80 (1 year) to 0.90 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

QULL vs. IWFL — Risk / Return Rank

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

QULL

QULL Risk / Return Rank: 47
QULL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
QULL Sortino Ratio Rank: 46
QULL Omega Ratio Rank: 43
QULL Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
QULL Martin Ratio Rank: 55

IWFL

IWFL Risk / Return Rank: 23
IWFL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
IWFL Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
IWFL Omega Ratio Rank: 25
IWFL Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
IWFL Martin Ratio Rank: 22

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.

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 ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.52	0.84	+0.68
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.14	1.27	+0.87
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.16	+0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.03	0.85	+1.18
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.00	2.65	+6.35

QULL vs. IWFL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QULL Sharpe Ratio is 1.52, which is higher than the IWFL Sharpe Ratio of 0.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QULL and IWFL, 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

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.

Drawdown Indicators

	QULL	IWFL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest 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 Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.03%	-12.34%	+7.31%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.93%	-19.82%	+5.89%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.15%	10.49%	-6.34%

Volatility

QULL vs. IWFL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Quality Factor TR ETN (QULL) is 6.62%, while ETRACS 2x Leveraged US Growth Factor TR ETN (IWFL) has a volatility of 10.92%. 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.

Volatility by Period

	QULL	IWFL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.62%	10.92%	-4.30%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.37%	26.51%	-7.14%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.70%	33.32%	-8.62%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	35.68%	46.86%	-11.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	35.06%	46.25%	-11.19%

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.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QULL and IWFL in my portfolio?

QULL and IWFL have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QULL or IWFL?

IWFL has higher volatility (10.92%) compared to QULL (6.62%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QULL dropped -51.83% vs IWFL's -59.29%.

Which ETF is better, QULL or IWFL?

On 5-year performance, QULL leads with 15.31% vs 14.74% for IWFL. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, QULL has been the lower-risk option at 6.62%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QULL or IWFL?

Over the 5-year period, QULL has performed better with a 15.31% return vs 14.74%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QULL or IWFL?

QULL and IWFL have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QULL or IWFL?

QULL and IWFL have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between QULL and IWFL?

QULL tracks MSCI USA Sector Neutral Quality Index, while IWFL tracks Russell 1000 Growth (200%).

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QULL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.52 vs 0.84), 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.