CONL vs. ISCMF

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

CONL (GraniteShares 2x Long COIN Daily ETF) and ISCMF (iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CONL is a Leveraged Equities fund actively managed by GraniteShares, while ISCMF is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity Index. CONL is actively managed, while ISCMF is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CONL returned -11.06%/yr vs 15.20%/yr for ISCMF. At a 0.01 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CONL charges 1.15%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for ISCMF.

Performance

CONL vs. ISCMF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares 2x Long COIN Daily ETF (CONL) and iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF (ISCMF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CONL achieves a -56.79% return, which is significantly lower than ISCMF's 22.87% return.

CONL

• 1D: -9.57%
• 1M: -21.27%
• YTD: -56.79%
• 6M: -68.91%
• 1Y: -74.16%
• 3Y*: -11.06%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ISCMF

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: -0.67%
• YTD: 22.87%
• 6M: 27.76%
• 1Y: 37.85%
• 3Y*: 15.20%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CONL vs. ISCMF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
CONL GraniteShares 2x Long COIN Daily ETF	-56.79%	-58.49%	4.23%	641.63%	-78.28%
ISCMF iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF	22.87%	19.65%	3.13%	-9.58%	0.41%

Correlation

The correlation between CONL and ISCMF is -0.10, 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	-0.10
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.01
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 10, 2022	0.01

The correlation between CONL and ISCMF shifts across timeframes, from -0.10 (1 year) to 0.01 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

CONL vs. ISCMF — Risk / Return Rank

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

CONL

CONL Risk / Return Rank: 4
CONL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
CONL Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
CONL Omega Ratio Rank: 5
CONL Calmar Ratio Rank: 2
CONL Martin Ratio Rank: 3

ISCMF

ISCMF Risk / Return Rank: 82
ISCMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
ISCMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
ISCMF Omega Ratio Rank: 99
ISCMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
ISCMF Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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. ISCMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares 2x Long COIN Daily ETF (CONL) and iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF (ISCMF). 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.

	CONL	ISCMF	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	-0.54	2.05	-2.59
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	-0.43	3.74	-4.16
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.95	2.53	-1.58
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.81	6.66	-7.46
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	-1.13	15.79	-16.92
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CONL vs. ISCMF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CONL Sharpe Ratio is -0.54, which is lower than the ISCMF Sharpe Ratio of 2.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CONL and ISCMF, 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

	CONL	ISCMF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.54	2.05	-2.59
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.18	0.45	-0.63

Drawdowns

CONL vs. ISCMF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CONL drawdown since its inception was -93.95%, which is greater than ISCMF's maximum drawdown of -25.42%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CONL and ISCMF.

Drawdown Indicators

	CONL	ISCMF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-93.95%	-25.42%	-68.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-92.02%	-5.69%	-86.33%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-93.95%	-7.62%	-86.33%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-92.57%	-5.26%	-87.31%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-55.91%	-13.44%	-42.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	65.48%	2.40%	+63.08%

Volatility

CONL vs. ISCMF - Volatility Comparison

GraniteShares 2x Long COIN Daily ETF (CONL) has a higher volatility of 38.63% compared to iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF (ISCMF) at 7.14%. This indicates that CONL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ISCMF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CONL	ISCMF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	38.63%	7.14%	+31.49%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	100.69%	15.90%	+84.79%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	138.87%	18.53%	+120.34%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	149.87%	14.38%	+135.49%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	149.87%	14.38%	+135.49%

CONL vs. ISCMF - Expense Ratio Comparison

CONL has a 1.15% expense ratio, which is higher than ISCMF's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

CONL vs. ISCMF - Dividend Comparison

Neither CONL nor ISCMF has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
CONL GraniteShares 2x Long COIN Daily ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.31%
ISCMF iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CONL and ISCMF in my portfolio?

CONL and ISCMF have a correlation of -0.10, 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 ISCMF?

CONL has higher volatility (38.63%) compared to ISCMF (7.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CONL dropped -93.95% vs ISCMF's -25.42%.

Which ETF is better, CONL or ISCMF?

On 3-year performance, ISCMF leads with 15.20% vs -11.06% for CONL. On fees, ISCMF is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, ISCMF has been the lower-risk option at 7.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CONL or ISCMF?

Over the 3-year period, ISCMF has performed better with a 15.20% return vs -11.06%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CONL or ISCMF?

ISCMF is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 1.15% for CONL.

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

CONL and ISCMF have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between CONL and ISCMF?

CONL is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while ISCMF is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: GraniteShares and iShares. Their fees differ too: 1.15% for CONL and 0.19% for ISCMF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ISCMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.05 vs -0.54), 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.