CRWL vs. BSMS

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

CRWL (GraniteShares 2x Long CRWD Daily ETF) and BSMS (Invesco BulletShares 2028 Municipal Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CRWL is a Leveraged Equities fund actively managed by GraniteShares, while BSMS is a Municipal Bonds fund tracking the Invesco BulletShares Municipal Bond 2028 Index. CRWL is actively managed, while BSMS is passively managed. Over the past year, CRWL returned 42.83% vs 3.86% for BSMS. At a 0.03 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CRWL charges 1.50%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for BSMS.

Performance

CRWL vs. BSMS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares 2x Long CRWD Daily ETF (CRWL) and Invesco BulletShares 2028 Municipal Bond ETF (BSMS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CRWL achieves a 64.32% return, which is significantly higher than BSMS's 0.65% return.

CRWL

• 1D: -13.60%
• 1M: 93.76%
• YTD: 64.32%
• 6M: 35.82%
• 1Y: 42.83%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BSMS

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: -0.03%
• YTD: 0.65%
• 6M: 1.10%
• 1Y: 3.86%
• 3Y*: 2.90%
• 5Y*: 0.03%
• 10Y*: —

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

CRWL vs. BSMS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CRWL GraniteShares 2x Long CRWD Daily ETF	64.32%	30.37%	-5.84%
BSMS Invesco BulletShares 2028 Municipal Bond ETF	0.65%	3.61%	0.03%

Correlation

The correlation between CRWL and BSMS is 0.05, 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	0.05
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 13, 2024	0.03

CRWL vs. BSMS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CRWL	BSMS
Technology	66.7%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	0.1%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	2.6%
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	0.0%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

CRWL vs. BSMS — Risk / Return Rank

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

CRWL

CRWL Risk / Return Rank: 20
CRWL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
CRWL Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
CRWL Omega Ratio Rank: 25
CRWL Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
CRWL Martin Ratio Rank: 16

BSMS

BSMS Risk / Return Rank: 80
BSMS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
BSMS Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
BSMS Omega Ratio Rank: 90
BSMS Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
BSMS Martin Ratio Rank: 62

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. BSMS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares 2x Long CRWD Daily ETF (CRWL) and Invesco BulletShares 2028 Municipal Bond ETF (BSMS). 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.

	CRWL	BSMS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.48	2.58	-2.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.25	3.97	-2.72
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.16	1.55	-0.40
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.66	3.70	-3.03
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.31	10.60	-9.29
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CRWL vs. BSMS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CRWL Sharpe Ratio is 0.48, which is lower than the BSMS Sharpe Ratio of 2.58. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CRWL and BSMS, 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

	CRWL	BSMS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.48	2.58	-2.11
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.01	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.60	0.19	+0.41

Drawdowns

CRWL vs. BSMS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CRWL drawdown since its inception was -64.99%, which is greater than BSMS's maximum drawdown of -14.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CRWL and BSMS.

Drawdown Indicators

	CRWL	BSMS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-64.99%	-14.95%	-50.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-64.99%	-1.05%	-63.94%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-4.25%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-14.95%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-27.54%	-1.26%	-26.28%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-24.73%	-4.96%	-19.77%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	32.75%	0.36%	+32.39%

Volatility

CRWL vs. BSMS - Volatility Comparison

GraniteShares 2x Long CRWD Daily ETF (CRWL) has a higher volatility of 36.94% compared to Invesco BulletShares 2028 Municipal Bond ETF (BSMS) at 0.52%. This indicates that CRWL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BSMS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CRWL	BSMS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	36.94%	0.52%	+36.42%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	75.48%	0.92%	+74.56%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	90.16%	1.50%	+88.66%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	96.42%	3.59%	+92.83%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	96.42%	6.20%	+90.22%

CRWL vs. BSMS - Expense Ratio Comparison

CRWL has a 1.50% expense ratio, which is higher than BSMS's 0.18% expense ratio.

Dividends

CRWL vs. BSMS - Dividend Comparison

CRWL has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BSMS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.78%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
BSMS Invesco BulletShares 2028 Municipal Bond ETF	2.78%	2.79%	2.81%	2.58%	1.56%	1.49%	1.61%	0.46%
CRWL GraniteShares 2x Long CRWD Daily ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CRWL and BSMS in my portfolio?

CRWL and BSMS have a correlation of 0.05, 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 BSMS?

CRWL has higher volatility (36.94%) compared to BSMS (0.52%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CRWL dropped -64.99% vs BSMS's -14.95%.

Which ETF is better, CRWL or BSMS?

On 1-year performance, CRWL leads with 42.83% vs 3.86% for BSMS. On fees, BSMS is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, BSMS has been the lower-risk option at 0.52%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CRWL or BSMS?

Over the 1-year period, CRWL has performed better with a 42.83% return vs 3.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CRWL or BSMS?

BSMS is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for CRWL.

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

BSMS has the higher dividend yield at 2.78%, compared with 0.00% for CRWL.

What is the main difference between CRWL and BSMS?

CRWL is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while BSMS is Municipal Bonds. They also come from different issuers: GraniteShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 1.50% for CRWL and 0.18% for BSMS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BSMS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.58 vs 0.48), 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.