CIFG vs. LABU
CIFG (Leverage Shares 2X Long CIFR Daily ETF) and LABU (Direxion Daily S&P Biotech Bull 3x Shares) are both Leveraged Equities funds. CIFG is actively managed, while LABU is passively managed. At a 0.37 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CIFG charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.96%/yr for LABU.
Performance
CIFG vs. LABU - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CIFG achieves a -26.74% return, which is significantly lower than LABU's 59.86% return.
CIFG
- 1D
- -21.93%
- 1M
- -59.11%
- 6M
- -46.89%
- YTD
- -26.74%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
LABU
- 1D
- -8.20%
- 1M
- 38.01%
- 6M
- 52.81%
- YTD
- 59.86%
- 1Y
- 286.59%
- 3Y*
- 26.50%
- 5Y*
- -26.07%
- 10Y*
- -9.00%
CIFG vs. LABU - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
CIFG Leverage Shares 2X Long CIFR Daily ETF | -26.74% | -32.52% |
LABU Direxion Daily S&P Biotech Bull 3x Shares | 59.86% | -0.33% |
Correlation
The correlation between CIFG and LABU is 0.37, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 11, 2025 | 0.37 |
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
CIFG vs. LABU — Risk / Return Rank
CIFG
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
LABU
CIFG vs. LABU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Leverage Shares 2X Long CIFR Daily ETF (CIFG) and Direxion Daily S&P Biotech Bull 3x Shares (LABU). 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.
| CIFG | LABU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.41 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 9.40 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 26.08 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CIFG vs. LABU - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CIFG drawdown since its inception was -71.71%, smaller than the maximum LABU drawdown of -99.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CIFG and LABU.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CIFG | LABU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -71.71% | -99.18% | +27.47% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -30.70% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -78.30% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -97.36% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -98.96% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -66.62% | -94.37% | +27.75% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -36.36% | -81.78% | +45.42% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 11.05% | — |
Volatility
CIFG vs. LABU - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CIFG | LABU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 25.26% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 63.83% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 206.17% | 79.41% | +126.76% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 206.17% | 96.05% | +110.12% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 206.17% | 95.22% | +110.95% |
CIFG vs. LABU - Expense Ratio Comparison
CIFG has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than LABU's 0.96% expense ratio.
Dividends
CIFG vs. LABU - Dividend Comparison
CIFG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while LABU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.40%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CIFG Leverage Shares 2X Long CIFR Daily ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
LABU Direxion Daily S&P Biotech Bull 3x Shares | 0.40% | 0.84% | 0.35% | 0.35% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.28% | 0.64% | 0.17% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CIFG and LABU have a correlation of 0.37, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CIFG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CIFG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.96% for LABU.
LABU has the higher dividend yield at 0.40%, compared with 0.00% for CIFG.
They also come from different issuers: Leverage Shares and Direxion. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for CIFG and 0.96% for LABU.
Find the right allocation for CIFG and LABU
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