CRMG vs. ZAP

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

CRMG (Leverage Shares 2X Long CRM Daily ETF) and ZAP (Global X U.S. Electrification ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CRMG is a Leveraged Equities fund actively managed by Leverage Shares, while ZAP is a Utilities Equities fund tracking the Global X U.S. Electrification Index. CRMG is actively managed, while ZAP is passively managed. Over the past year, CRMG returned -74.56% vs 35.04% for ZAP. At a correlation of -0.05, they often move in opposite directions. CRMG charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for ZAP.

Performance

CRMG vs. ZAP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Leverage Shares 2X Long CRM Daily ETF (CRMG) and Global X U.S. Electrification ETF (ZAP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CRMG achieves a -72.43% return, which is significantly lower than ZAP's 20.08% return.

CRMG

• 1D: -2.33%
• 1M: -32.50%
• YTD: -72.43%
• 6M: -72.45%
• 1Y: -74.56%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ZAP

• 1D: 1.43%
• 1M: 1.55%
• YTD: 20.08%
• 6M: 19.91%
• 1Y: 35.04%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CRMG vs. ZAP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CRMG Leverage Shares 2X Long CRM Daily ETF	-72.43%	-0.29%
ZAP Global X U.S. Electrification ETF	20.08%	21.00%

Correlation

The correlation between CRMG and ZAP is -0.13, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.13
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 4, 2025	-0.05

Return for Risk

CRMG vs. ZAP — Risk / Return Rank

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

CRMG

CRMG Risk / Return Rank: 1
CRMG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1
CRMG Sortino Ratio Rank: 1
CRMG Omega Ratio Rank: 1
CRMG Calmar Ratio Rank: 1
CRMG Martin Ratio Rank: 0

ZAP

ZAP Risk / Return Rank: 73
ZAP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
ZAP Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
ZAP Omega Ratio Rank: 66
ZAP Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
ZAP Martin Ratio Rank: 67

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.

CRMG vs. ZAP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Leverage Shares 2X Long CRM Daily ETF (CRMG) and Global X U.S. Electrification ETF (ZAP). 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.

	CRMG	ZAP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.98	2.28	-3.26
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.86	3.05	-4.91
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.79	1.38	-0.59
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.97	4.87	-5.84
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.73	11.92	-13.65

CRMG vs. ZAP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CRMG Sharpe Ratio is -0.98, which is lower than the ZAP Sharpe Ratio of 2.28. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CRMG and ZAP, 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

CRMG vs. ZAP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CRMG drawdown since its inception was -79.83%, which is greater than ZAP's maximum drawdown of -12.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CRMG and ZAP.

Drawdown Indicators

	CRMG	ZAP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-79.83%	-12.38%	-67.45%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-76.80%	-7.23%	-69.57%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-79.83%	0.00%	-79.83%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-39.05%	-2.60%	-36.45%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	43.14%	2.95%	+40.19%

Volatility

CRMG vs. ZAP - Volatility Comparison

Leverage Shares 2X Long CRM Daily ETF (CRMG) has a higher volatility of 32.09% compared to Global X U.S. Electrification ETF (ZAP) at 6.08%. This indicates that CRMG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ZAP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CRMG	ZAP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	32.09%	6.08%	+26.01%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	63.54%	12.06%	+51.48%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	76.13%	15.47%	+60.66%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	75.40%	16.92%	+58.48%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	75.40%	16.92%	+58.48%

CRMG vs. ZAP - Expense Ratio Comparison

CRMG has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than ZAP's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

CRMG vs. ZAP - Dividend Comparison

CRMG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ZAP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.49%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
CRMG Leverage Shares 2X Long CRM Daily ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ZAP Global X U.S. Electrification ETF	1.49%	1.81%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CRMG and ZAP in my portfolio?

CRMG and ZAP have a correlation of -0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CRMG or ZAP?

CRMG has higher volatility (32.09%) compared to ZAP (6.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CRMG dropped -79.83% vs ZAP's -12.38%.

Which ETF is better, CRMG or ZAP?

On 1-year performance, ZAP leads with 35.04% vs -74.56% for CRMG. On fees, ZAP is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, ZAP has been the lower-risk option at 6.08%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CRMG or ZAP?

Over the 1-year period, ZAP has performed better with a 35.04% return vs -74.56%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CRMG or ZAP?

ZAP is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for CRMG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CRMG or ZAP?

ZAP has the higher dividend yield at 1.49%, compared with 0.00% for CRMG.

What is the main difference between CRMG and ZAP?

CRMG is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while ZAP is Utilities Equities. They also come from different issuers: Leverage Shares and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for CRMG and 0.50% for ZAP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ZAP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.28 vs -0.98), 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.