CRWL vs. BAR

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

CRWL (GraniteShares 2x Long CRWD Daily ETF) and BAR (GraniteShares Gold Trust) are both exchange-traded funds - CRWL is a Leveraged Equities fund actively managed by GraniteShares, while BAR is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM ($/ozt). CRWL is actively managed, while BAR is passively managed. Over the past year, CRWL returned 27.97% vs 20.46% for BAR. At a 0.07 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CRWL charges 1.50%/yr vs 0.17%/yr for BAR.

Performance

CRWL vs. BAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares 2x Long CRWD Daily ETF (CRWL) and GraniteShares Gold Trust (BAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CRWL achieves a 65.91% return, which is significantly higher than BAR's -6.75% return.

CRWL

• 1D: 2.00%
• 1M: -2.13%
• YTD: 65.91%
• 6M: 58.27%
• 1Y: 27.97%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BAR

• 1D: 0.92%
• 1M: -10.75%
• YTD: -6.75%
• 6M: -10.24%
• 1Y: 20.46%
• 3Y*: 27.69%
• 5Y*: 17.51%
• 10Y*: —

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

CRWL vs. BAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CRWL GraniteShares 2x Long CRWD Daily ETF	65.91%	30.37%	-4.49%
BAR GraniteShares Gold Trust	-6.75%	64.12%	-0.00%

Correlation

The correlation between CRWL and BAR is 0.04, 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	0.04
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 12, 2024	0.07

Return for Risk

CRWL vs. BAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

CRWL

CRWL Risk / Return Rank: 16
CRWL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
CRWL Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
CRWL Omega Ratio Rank: 20
CRWL Calmar Ratio Rank: 13
CRWL Martin Ratio Rank: 12

BAR

BAR Risk / Return Rank: 22
BAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
BAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
BAR Omega Ratio Rank: 25
BAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 19
BAR Martin Ratio Rank: 20

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.

CRWL vs. BAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares 2x Long CRWD Daily ETF (CRWL) and GraniteShares Gold Trust (BAR). 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.

	CRWL	BAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.31	0.75	-0.44
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.07	1.09	-0.02
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	1.16	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.43	0.79	-0.35
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.84	2.19	-1.35

CRWL vs. BAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CRWL Sharpe Ratio is 0.31, which is lower than the BAR Sharpe Ratio of 0.75. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CRWL and BAR, 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

CRWL vs. BAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CRWL drawdown since its inception was -64.99%, which is greater than BAR's maximum drawdown of -26.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CRWL and BAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	CRWL	BAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-64.99%	-26.15%	-38.84%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-64.99%	-26.15%	-38.84%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-26.15%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-26.15%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-26.84%	-25.47%	-1.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-24.75%	-6.55%	-18.20%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	33.33%	9.35%	+23.98%

Volatility

CRWL vs. BAR - Volatility Comparison

GraniteShares 2x Long CRWD Daily ETF (CRWL) has a higher volatility of 34.58% compared to GraniteShares Gold Trust (BAR) at 8.60%. This indicates that CRWL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CRWL	BAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	34.58%	8.60%	+25.98%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	75.80%	24.32%	+51.48%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	90.92%	27.52%	+63.40%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	95.58%	18.19%	+77.39%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	95.58%	16.56%	+79.02%

CRWL vs. BAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

CRWL has a 1.50% expense ratio, which is higher than BAR's 0.17% expense ratio.

Dividends

CRWL vs. BAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither CRWL nor BAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CRWL and BAR in my portfolio?

CRWL and BAR have a correlation of 0.04, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CRWL or BAR?

CRWL has higher volatility (34.58%) compared to BAR (8.60%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CRWL dropped -64.99% vs BAR's -26.15%.

Which ETF is better, CRWL or BAR?

On 1-year performance, CRWL leads with 27.97% vs 20.46% for BAR. On fees, BAR is cheaper at 0.17% per year. On volatility, BAR has been the lower-risk option at 8.60%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CRWL or BAR?

Over the 1-year period, CRWL has performed better with a 27.97% return vs 20.46%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CRWL or BAR?

BAR is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for CRWL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CRWL or BAR?

CRWL and BAR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between CRWL and BAR?

CRWL is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while BAR is Gold. Their fees differ too: 1.50% for CRWL and 0.17% for BAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.75 vs 0.31), 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.