BIB vs. INTW

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BIB (ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Biotechnology) and INTW (GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. BIB is passively managed, while INTW is actively managed. Over the past year, BIB returned 100.86% vs 1964.55% for INTW. At a 0.34 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BIB charges 0.95%/yr vs 1.50%/yr for INTW.

Performance

BIB vs. INTW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Biotechnology (BIB) and GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BIB achieves a 12.50% return, which is significantly lower than INTW's 750.22% return.

BIB

• 1D: 1.97%
• 1M: 9.49%
• YTD: 12.50%
• 6M: 8.62%
• 1Y: 100.86%
• 3Y*: 19.65%
• 5Y*: -0.74%
• 10Y*: 9.71%

INTW

• 1D: -12.49%
• 1M: 12.21%
• YTD: 750.22%
• 6M: 775.58%
• 1Y: 1,964.55%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BIB vs. INTW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BIB ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Biotechnology	12.50%	49.94%
INTW GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF	750.22%	60.89%

Correlation

The correlation between BIB and INTW is 0.28, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.28
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 13, 2025	0.34

BIB vs. INTW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BIB	INTW
Healthcare	62.9%	-
Financial Services	6.8%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	66.7%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

BIB vs. INTW — Risk / Return Rank

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

BIB

BIB Risk / Return Rank: 80
BIB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
BIB Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
BIB Omega Ratio Rank: 65
BIB Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
BIB Martin Ratio Rank: 88

INTW

INTW Risk / Return Rank: 98
INTW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
INTW Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
INTW Omega Ratio Rank: 94
INTW Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
INTW Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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.

BIB vs. INTW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Biotechnology (BIB) and GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW). 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.

	BIB	INTW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.51	13.25	-10.74
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.08	5.13	-2.06
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.65	-0.29
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.99	40.32	-34.33
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.30	91.49	-73.19

BIB vs. INTW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BIB Sharpe Ratio is 2.51, which is lower than the INTW Sharpe Ratio of 13.25. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BIB and INTW, 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

BIB vs. INTW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BIB drawdown since its inception was -67.24%, which is greater than INTW's maximum drawdown of -60.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BIB and INTW.

Drawdown Indicators

	BIB	INTW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-67.24%	-60.58%	-6.66%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.92%	-49.34%	+32.42%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-45.30%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-65.86%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-66.20%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-17.29%	-12.49%	-4.80%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-32.71%	-29.66%	-3.05%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.53%	21.70%	-16.17%

Volatility

BIB vs. INTW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Biotechnology (BIB) is 13.56%, while GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW) has a volatility of 55.81%. This indicates that BIB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than INTW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BIB	INTW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.56%	55.81%	-42.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	31.65%	119.10%	-87.45%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	40.43%	150.14%	-109.71%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	43.60%	148.88%	-105.28%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	46.39%	148.88%	-102.49%

BIB vs. INTW - Expense Ratio Comparison

BIB has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is lower than INTW's 1.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

BIB vs. INTW - Dividend Comparison

BIB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.55%, while INTW has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
BIB ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Biotechnology	0.55%	0.77%	1.69%	0.07%	0.03%
INTW GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BIB and INTW in my portfolio?

BIB and INTW have a correlation of 0.28, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BIB or INTW?

INTW has higher volatility (55.81%) compared to BIB (13.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BIB dropped -67.24% vs INTW's -60.58%.

Which ETF is better, BIB or INTW?

On 1-year performance, INTW leads with 1964.55% vs 100.86% for BIB. On fees, BIB is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, BIB has been the lower-risk option at 13.56%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BIB or INTW?

Over the 1-year period, INTW has performed better with a 1964.55% return vs 100.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BIB or INTW?

BIB is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for INTW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BIB or INTW?

BIB has the higher dividend yield at 0.55%, compared with 0.00% for INTW.

What is the main difference between BIB and INTW?

They also come from different issuers: ProShares and GraniteShares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for BIB and 1.50% for INTW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

INTW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (13.25 vs 2.51), 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.