CONL vs. ILS

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CONL (GraniteShares 2x Long COIN Daily ETF) and ILS (Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CONL is a Leveraged Equities fund actively managed by GraniteShares, while ILS is a Nontraditional Bonds fund actively managed by Brookmont. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CONL returned -86.06% vs 7.81% for ILS. At a correlation of -0.08, they often move in opposite directions. CONL charges 1.15%/yr vs 1.58%/yr for ILS.

Performance

CONL vs. ILS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares 2x Long COIN Daily ETF (CONL) and Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF (ILS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CONL achieves a -65.46% return, which is significantly lower than ILS's 2.27% return.

CONL

• 1D: -7.83%
• 1M: -30.11%
• YTD: -65.46%
• 6M: -70.11%
• 1Y: -86.06%
• 3Y*: -14.86%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ILS

• 1D: 0.10%
• 1M: 1.26%
• YTD: 2.27%
• 6M: 2.63%
• 1Y: 7.81%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CONL vs. ILS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CONL GraniteShares 2x Long COIN Daily ETF	-65.46%	5.70%
ILS Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF	2.27%	3.54%

Correlation

The correlation between CONL and ILS is -0.08, 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	-0.08
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 1, 2025	-0.08

Return for Risk

CONL vs. ILS — Risk / Return Rank

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

CONL

CONL Risk / Return Rank: 3
CONL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
CONL Sortino Ratio Rank: 3
CONL Omega Ratio Rank: 3
CONL Calmar Ratio Rank: 1
CONL Martin Ratio Rank: 3

ILS

ILS Risk / Return Rank: 96
ILS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
ILS Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
ILS Omega Ratio Rank: 95
ILS Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
ILS Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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.

CONL vs. ILS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares 2x Long COIN Daily ETF (CONL) and Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF (ILS). 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.

	CONL	ILS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.63	3.06	-3.69
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.10	5.05	-6.15
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.88	1.69	-0.81
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.93	14.18	-15.11
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.25	52.13	-53.38

CONL vs. ILS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CONL Sharpe Ratio is -0.63, which is lower than the ILS Sharpe Ratio of 3.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CONL and ILS, 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

CONL vs. ILS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CONL drawdown since its inception was -94.36%, which is greater than ILS's maximum drawdown of -2.46%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CONL and ILS.

Drawdown Indicators

	CONL	ILS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-94.36%	-2.46%	-91.90%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-92.57%	-0.55%	-92.02%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-94.36%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-94.06%	0.00%	-94.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-56.45%	-0.54%	-55.91%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	68.94%	0.15%	+68.79%

Volatility

CONL vs. ILS - Volatility Comparison

GraniteShares 2x Long COIN Daily ETF (CONL) has a higher volatility of 36.69% compared to Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF (ILS) at 0.84%. This indicates that CONL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ILS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CONL	ILS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	36.69%	0.84%	+35.85%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	102.83%	1.68%	+101.15%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	135.85%	2.58%	+133.27%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	149.59%	3.77%	+145.82%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	149.59%	3.77%	+145.82%

CONL vs. ILS - Expense Ratio Comparison

CONL has a 1.15% expense ratio, which is lower than ILS's 1.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

CONL vs. ILS - Dividend Comparison

CONL has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ILS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.05%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
CONL GraniteShares 2x Long COIN Daily ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.31%
ILS Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF	8.05%	6.06%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CONL and ILS in my portfolio?

CONL and ILS have a correlation of -0.08, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CONL or ILS?

CONL has higher volatility (36.69%) compared to ILS (0.84%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CONL dropped -94.36% vs ILS's -2.46%.

Which ETF is better, CONL or ILS?

On 1-year performance, ILS leads with 7.81% vs -86.06% for CONL. On fees, CONL is cheaper at 1.15% per year. On volatility, ILS has been the lower-risk option at 0.84%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CONL or ILS?

Over the 1-year period, ILS has performed better with a 7.81% return vs -86.06%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CONL or ILS?

CONL is cheaper with a 1.15% expense ratio, compared with 1.58% for ILS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CONL or ILS?

ILS has the higher dividend yield at 8.05%, compared with 0.00% for CONL.

What is the main difference between CONL and ILS?

CONL is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while ILS is Nontraditional Bonds. They also come from different issuers: GraniteShares and Brookmont. Their fees differ too: 1.15% for CONL and 1.58% for ILS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ILS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.06 vs -0.63), 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.