CONL vs. MSFL

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

CONL (GraniteShares 2x Long COIN Daily ETF) and MSFL (GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds from GraniteShares. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CONL returned -88.50% vs -33.16% for MSFL. Their 0.38 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. Both charge a 1.15% expense ratio.

Performance

CONL vs. MSFL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares 2x Long COIN Daily ETF (CONL) 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, CONL achieves a -72.70% return, which is significantly lower than MSFL's -18.68% return.

CONL

• 1D: -21.10%
• 1M: -25.93%
• 6M: -61.90%
• YTD: -72.70%
• 1Y: -88.50%
• 3Y*: -35.39%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -35.80%

MSFL

• 1D: 5.79%
• 1M: 37.76%
• 6M: 5.09%
• YTD: -18.68%
• 1Y: -33.16%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -5.56%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
CONL GraniteShares 2x Long COIN Daily ETF	$93.31M	$92.00M	$129.00M
MSFL GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF	$37.77M	$32.36M	$34.28M

CONL vs. MSFL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CONL GraniteShares 2x Long COIN Daily ETF	-72.70%	-58.49%	-46.24%
MSFL GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF	-18.68%	16.99%	-8.21%

Correlation

The correlation between CONL and MSFL is 0.35, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.35
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 18, 2024	0.38

CONL vs. MSFL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CONL	MSFL
Financial Services	100.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	66.7%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

CONL vs. MSFL — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

CONL

CONL Risk / Return Rank: 2
CONL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
CONL Sortino Ratio Rank: 1
CONL Omega Ratio Rank: 2
CONL Calmar Ratio Rank: 0
CONL Martin Ratio Rank: 1

MSFL

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

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

CONL vs. MSFL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

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	MSFL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.67	-0.57	-0.10
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.61	-0.59	-1.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.82	0.93	-0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-1.01	-0.57	-0.43
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.36	-0.95	-0.41

CONL vs. MSFL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CONL Sharpe Ratio is -0.67, which is comparable to the MSFL Sharpe Ratio of -0.57. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CONL 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.

Drawdowns

CONL vs. MSFL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CONL drawdown since its inception was -95.30%, which is greater than MSFL's maximum drawdown of -62.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CONL and MSFL.

Drawdown Indicators

	CONL	MSFL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-95.30%	-62.08%	-33.22%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-91.79%	-62.08%	-29.71%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-95.30%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-95.30%	-36.63%	-58.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-57.47%	-23.68%	-33.79%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	70.40%	37.31%	+33.09%

Volatility

CONL vs. MSFL - Volatility Comparison

GraniteShares 2x Long COIN Daily ETF (CONL) has a higher volatility of 40.73% compared to GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF (MSFL) at 29.71%. This indicates that CONL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MSFL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CONL	MSFL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	40.73%	29.71%	+11.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	108.93%	51.38%	+57.55%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	138.25%	63.24%	+75.01%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	149.42%	54.34%	+95.08%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	149.42%	54.34%	+95.08%

CONL vs. MSFL - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both CONL and MSFL have an expense ratio of 1.15%.

Dividends

CONL vs. MSFL - Dividend Comparison

Neither CONL nor MSFL has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
CONL GraniteShares 2x Long COIN Daily ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.31%
MSFL GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CONL and MSFL in my portfolio?

CONL and MSFL have a correlation of 0.35, 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 MSFL?

CONL has higher volatility (40.73%) compared to MSFL (29.71%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CONL dropped -95.30% vs MSFL's -62.08%.

Which ETF is better, CONL or MSFL?

On 1-year performance, MSFL leads with -33.16% vs -88.50% for CONL. Both ETFs have the same 1.15% expense ratio. On volatility, MSFL has been the lower-risk option at 29.71%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CONL or MSFL?

Over the 1-year period, MSFL has performed better with a -33.16% return vs -88.50%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CONL or MSFL?

CONL and MSFL have the same expense ratio: 1.15% per year.

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

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MSFL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.57 vs -0.67), 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.