BAR vs. MSFL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

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 32.26% vs -25.22% for MSFL. At a 0.04 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BAR charges 0.17%/yr vs 1.15%/yr for MSFL.

Performance

BAR vs. MSFL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares Gold Trust (BAR) and GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF (MSFL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BAR achieves a 2.94% return, which is significantly higher than MSFL's -27.69% return.

BAR

• 1D: -1.02%
• 1M: -1.62%
• YTD: 2.94%
• 6M: 5.50%
• 1Y: 32.26%
• 3Y*: 31.38%
• 5Y*: 18.41%
• 10Y*: —

MSFL

• 1D: -6.43%
• 1M: 5.25%
• YTD: -27.69%
• 6M: -26.50%
• 1Y: -25.22%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BAR vs. MSFL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
BAR GraniteShares Gold Trust	2.94%	64.12%	21.21%
MSFL GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF	-27.69%	16.99%	-9.07%

Correlation

The correlation between BAR and MSFL is 0.04, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.04
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 19, 2024	0.04

Return for Risk

BAR vs. MSFL — Risk / Return Rank

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

BAR

BAR Risk / Return Rank: 32
BAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
BAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
BAR Omega Ratio Rank: 36
BAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
BAR Martin Ratio Rank: 29

MSFL

MSFL Risk / Return Rank: 5
MSFL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
MSFL Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
MSFL Omega Ratio Rank: 5
MSFL Calmar Ratio Rank: 5
MSFL Martin Ratio Rank: 5

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.

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.

	BAR	MSFL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.23	-0.50	+1.73
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.62	-0.42	+2.05
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	0.94	+0.30
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.69	-0.43	+2.12
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.19	-0.83	+5.02
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BAR vs. MSFL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BAR Sharpe Ratio is 1.23, which is higher than the MSFL Sharpe Ratio of -0.50. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BAR and MSFL, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BAR	MSFL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.23	-0.50	+1.73
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.03	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.90	-0.23	+1.13

Drawdowns

BAR vs. MSFL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BAR drawdown since its inception was -21.53%, smaller than the maximum MSFL drawdown of -59.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BAR and MSFL.

Drawdown Indicators

	BAR	MSFL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.53%	-59.39%	+37.86%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.19%	-59.39%	+40.20%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.19%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.91%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-17.72%	-43.65%	+25.93%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.45%	-21.58%	+15.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.72%	30.61%	-22.89%

Volatility

BAR vs. MSFL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for GraniteShares Gold Trust (BAR) is 5.46%, while GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF (MSFL) has a volatility of 19.81%. 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.

Volatility by Period

	BAR	MSFL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.46%	19.81%	-14.35%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.03%	45.23%	-22.20%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.43%	50.19%	-23.76%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.90%	49.60%	-31.70%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.38%	49.60%	-33.22%

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.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BAR and MSFL in my portfolio?

BAR and MSFL have a correlation of 0.04, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BAR or MSFL?

MSFL has higher volatility (19.81%) compared to BAR (5.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BAR dropped -21.53% vs MSFL's -59.39%.

Which ETF is better, BAR or MSFL?

On 1-year performance, BAR leads with 32.26% vs -25.22% for MSFL. On fees, BAR is cheaper at 0.17% per year. On volatility, BAR has been the lower-risk option at 5.46%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BAR or MSFL?

Over the 1-year period, BAR has performed better with a 32.26% return vs -25.22%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BAR or MSFL?

BAR is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 1.15% for MSFL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BAR or MSFL?

BAR and MSFL have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between BAR and MSFL?

BAR is categorized as Gold, while MSFL is Leveraged Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.17% for BAR and 1.15% for MSFL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.23 vs -0.50), 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.