BAR vs. MSFL
BAR (GraniteShares Gold Trust) and MSFL (GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BAR is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM ($/ozt), while MSFL is a Leveraged Equities fund actively managed by GraniteShares. BAR is passively managed, while MSFL is actively managed. Over the past year, BAR returned 20.54% vs -26.66% for MSFL. Their 0.04 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. BAR charges 0.17%/yr vs 1.15%/yr for MSFL.
Performance
BAR vs. MSFL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BAR achieves a -6.10% return, which is significantly higher than MSFL's -10.77% return.
BAR
- 1D
- 0.13%
- 1M
- -1.60%
- 6M
- -12.98%
- YTD
- -6.10%
- 1Y
- 20.54%
- 3Y*
- 27.61%
- 5Y*
- 17.26%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 13.26%
MSFL
- 1D
- 9.72%
- 1M
- 51.15%
- 6M
- 19.21%
- YTD
- -10.77%
- 1Y
- -26.66%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- -1.78%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $8.15M | $7.49M | $9.63M | |
| $42.00M | $33.79M | $35.34M |
BAR vs. MSFL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
BAR GraniteShares Gold Trust | -6.10% | 64.12% | 21.49% |
MSFL GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF | -10.77% | 16.99% | -8.21% |
Correlation
The correlation between BAR and MSFL is 0.09, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.09 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 18, 2024 | 0.04 |
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
BAR vs. MSFL — Risk / Return Rank
BAR
MSFL
BAR vs. MSFL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares Gold Trust (BAR) and GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF (MSFL). 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.
| BAR | MSFL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.16 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.36 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.16 | 0.97 | +0.19 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.78 | -0.43 | +1.21 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.68 | -0.71 | +2.39 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BAR vs. MSFL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BAR drawdown since its inception was -26.32%, smaller than the maximum MSFL drawdown of -62.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BAR and MSFL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BAR | MSFL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -26.32% | -62.08% | +35.76% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -26.32% | -62.08% | +35.76% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -26.32% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -26.32% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -24.94% | -30.47% | +5.53% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.76% | -23.69% | +16.93% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 12.26% | 37.36% | -25.10% |
Volatility
BAR vs. MSFL - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for GraniteShares Gold Trust (BAR) is 5.98%, while GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF (MSFL) has a volatility of 30.67%. This indicates that BAR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MSFL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BAR | MSFL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.98% | 30.67% | -24.69% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 20.76% | 52.19% | -31.43% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 27.90% | 63.60% | -35.70% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.38% | 54.66% | -36.28% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.61% | 54.66% | -38.05% |
BAR vs. MSFL - Expense Ratio Comparison
BAR has a 0.17% expense ratio, which is lower than MSFL's 1.15% expense ratio.
Dividends
BAR vs. MSFL - Dividend Comparison
Neither BAR nor MSFL has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
BAR and MSFL have a correlation of 0.09, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
MSFL has higher volatility (30.67%) compared to BAR (5.98%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BAR dropped -26.32% vs MSFL's -62.08%.
On 1-year performance, BAR leads with 20.54% vs -26.66% for MSFL. On fees, BAR is cheaper at 0.17% per year. On volatility, BAR has been the lower-risk option at 5.98%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, BAR has performed better with a 20.54% return vs -26.66%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
BAR is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 1.15% for MSFL.
BAR and MSFL have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
BAR is categorized as Gold, while MSFL is Leveraged Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.17% for BAR and 1.15% for MSFL.
BAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.74 vs -0.42), 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 BAR and MSFL
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