2FB.L vs. LUK2.L

Last updated Jul 18, 2026

2FB.L (Leverage Shares 2x Facebook ETC A GBP) and LUK2.L (L&G FTSE 100 Leveraged (Daily 2x) UCITS ETF GBP (Acc)) are both Leveraged Equities funds - 2FB.L tracks the NYSE Leveraged 2x FB Index while LUK2.L tracks the FTSE 100 Daily Leveraged Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, 2FB.L returned -2.68%/yr vs 17.31%/yr for LUK2.L. At a 0.33 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. 2FB.L charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for LUK2.L.

Performance

2FB.L vs. LUK2.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Leverage Shares 2x Facebook ETC A GBP (2FB.L) and L&G FTSE 100 Leveraged (Daily 2x) UCITS ETF GBP (Acc) (LUK2.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, 2FB.L achieves a -21.96% return, which is significantly lower than LUK2.L's 12.85% return.

2FB.L

• 1D: -13.16%
• 1M: 13.32%
• 6M: -11.74%
• YTD: -21.96%
• 1Y: -36.89%
• 3Y*: 27.77%
• 5Y*: -2.68%
• 10Y*: —

LUK2.L

• 1D: 0.67%
• 1M: 1.34%
• 6M: 6.53%
• YTD: 12.85%
• 1Y: 36.06%
• 3Y*: 24.04%
• 5Y*: 17.31%
• 10Y*: 10.51%

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

2FB.L vs. LUK2.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
2FB.L Leverage Shares 2x Facebook ETC A GBP	-21.96%	-8.57%	128.56%	597.14%	-92.16%	43.03%	34.26%	99.79%	-63.43%	-3.05%
LUK2.L L&G FTSE 100 Leveraged (Daily 2x) UCITS ETF GBP (Acc)	12.85%	43.73%	9.81%	6.59%	3.75%	34.76%	-30.43%	32.52%	-20.70%	10.66%

Correlation

The correlation between 2FB.L and LUK2.L is 0.21, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.21
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.21
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.27
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 8, 2017	0.33

The correlation between 2FB.L and LUK2.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.21 (1 year) to 0.33 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

2FB.L vs. LUK2.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

2FB.L

2FB.L Risk / Return Rank: 6
2FB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6
2FB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7
2FB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7
2FB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 4
2FB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 5

LUK2.L

LUK2.L Risk / Return Rank: 57
LUK2.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
LUK2.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
LUK2.L Omega Ratio Rank: 64
LUK2.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
LUK2.L Martin Ratio Rank: 46

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.

2FB.L vs. LUK2.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Leverage Shares 2x Facebook ETC A GBP (2FB.L) and L&G FTSE 100 Leveraged (Daily 2x) UCITS ETF GBP (Acc) (LUK2.L). 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.

	2FB.L	LUK2.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.47	1.59	-2.06
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.30	2.18	-2.48
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.96	1.29	-0.33
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.61	1.94	-2.55
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.98	5.67	-6.65

2FB.L vs. LUK2.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current 2FB.L Sharpe Ratio is -0.47, which is lower than the LUK2.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of 2FB.L and LUK2.L, 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

2FB.L vs. LUK2.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum 2FB.L drawdown since its inception was -96.13%, which is greater than LUK2.L's maximum drawdown of -58.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for 2FB.L and LUK2.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	2FB.L	LUK2.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-96.13%	-58.84%	-37.29%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-60.32%	-18.55%	-41.77%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-63.66%	-25.42%	-38.24%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-96.13%	-25.42%	-70.71%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-58.84%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-52.92%	-6.16%	-46.76%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-41.80%	-10.67%	-31.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	37.46%	6.34%	+31.12%

Volatility

2FB.L vs. LUK2.L - Volatility Comparison

Leverage Shares 2x Facebook ETC A GBP (2FB.L) has a higher volatility of 38.85% compared to L&G FTSE 100 Leveraged (Daily 2x) UCITS ETF GBP (Acc) (LUK2.L) at 5.83%. This indicates that 2FB.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LUK2.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	2FB.L	LUK2.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	38.85%	5.83%	+33.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	64.02%	19.66%	+44.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	78.50%	22.62%	+55.88%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	85.89%	25.60%	+60.29%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	79.59%	29.65%	+49.94%

2FB.L vs. LUK2.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

2FB.L has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than LUK2.L's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

2FB.L vs. LUK2.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither 2FB.L nor LUK2.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both 2FB.L and LUK2.L in my portfolio?

2FB.L and LUK2.L have a correlation of 0.21, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, 2FB.L or LUK2.L?

On fees, LUK2.L is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, 2FB.L or LUK2.L?

LUK2.L is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for 2FB.L.

What is the main difference between 2FB.L and LUK2.L?

2FB.L tracks NYSE Leveraged 2x FB Index, while LUK2.L tracks FTSE 100 Daily Leveraged Index. They also come from different issuers: Leverage Shares and L&G. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for 2FB.L and 0.50% for LUK2.L.