EFO vs. INTW

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

EFO (ProShares Ultra MSCI EAFE) and INTW (GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. EFO is passively managed, while INTW is actively managed. Over the past year, EFO returned 36.54% vs 1964.55% for INTW. At a 0.36 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EFO charges 0.95%/yr vs 1.50%/yr for INTW.

Performance

EFO vs. INTW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Ultra MSCI EAFE (EFO) and GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EFO achieves a 12.32% return, which is significantly lower than INTW's 750.22% return.

EFO

• 1D: -3.85%
• 1M: -0.37%
• YTD: 12.32%
• 6M: 11.55%
• 1Y: 36.54%
• 3Y*: 23.94%
• 5Y*: 7.59%
• 10Y*: 11.79%

INTW

• 1D: -12.49%
• 1M: 12.21%
• YTD: 750.22%
• 6M: 775.58%
• 1Y: 1,964.55%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EFO vs. INTW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
EFO ProShares Ultra MSCI EAFE	12.32%	39.27%
INTW GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF	750.22%	60.89%

Correlation

The correlation between EFO and INTW is 0.36, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.36
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 13, 2025	0.36

EFO vs. INTW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EFO	INTW
Financial Services	41.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	66.7%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

EFO vs. INTW — Risk / Return Rank

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

EFO

EFO Risk / Return Rank: 35
EFO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
EFO Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
EFO Omega Ratio Rank: 33
EFO Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
EFO Martin Ratio Rank: 38

INTW

INTW Risk / Return Rank: 98
INTW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
INTW Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
INTW Omega Ratio Rank: 94
INTW Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
INTW Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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.

EFO vs. INTW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra MSCI EAFE (EFO) and GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW). 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.

	EFO	INTW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.16	13.25	-12.09
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.73	5.13	-3.40
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.65	-0.44
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.66	40.32	-38.67
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.64	91.49	-85.85

EFO vs. INTW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EFO Sharpe Ratio is 1.16, which is lower than the INTW Sharpe Ratio of 13.25. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EFO and INTW, 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

EFO vs. INTW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EFO drawdown since its inception was -63.52%, roughly equal to the maximum INTW drawdown of -60.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EFO and INTW.

Drawdown Indicators

	EFO	INTW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-63.52%	-60.58%	-2.94%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.18%	-49.34%	+27.16%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.85%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-53.95%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-63.52%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.00%	-12.49%	+6.49%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.62%	-29.66%	+11.04%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.49%	21.70%	-15.21%

Volatility

EFO vs. INTW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ProShares Ultra MSCI EAFE (EFO) is 10.89%, while GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW) has a volatility of 55.81%. This indicates that EFO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than INTW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EFO	INTW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.89%	55.81%	-44.92%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	26.85%	119.10%	-92.25%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	31.71%	150.14%	-118.43%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	33.20%	148.88%	-115.68%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	33.65%	148.88%	-115.23%

EFO vs. INTW - Expense Ratio Comparison

EFO has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is lower than INTW's 1.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

EFO vs. INTW - Dividend Comparison

EFO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.54%, while INTW has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
EFO ProShares Ultra MSCI EAFE	1.54%	1.65%	2.24%	1.93%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.37%	0.11%
INTW GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EFO and INTW in my portfolio?

EFO and INTW have a correlation of 0.36, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EFO or INTW?

INTW has higher volatility (55.81%) compared to EFO (10.89%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EFO dropped -63.52% vs INTW's -60.58%.

Which ETF is better, EFO or INTW?

On 1-year performance, INTW leads with 1964.55% vs 36.54% for EFO. On fees, EFO is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, EFO has been the lower-risk option at 10.89%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EFO or INTW?

Over the 1-year period, INTW has performed better with a 1964.55% return vs 36.54%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EFO or INTW?

EFO is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for INTW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EFO or INTW?

EFO has the higher dividend yield at 1.54%, compared with 0.00% for INTW.

What is the main difference between EFO and INTW?

They also come from different issuers: ProShares and GraniteShares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for EFO and 1.50% for INTW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

INTW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (13.25 vs 1.16), 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.