EFU vs. LULG
EFU (ProShares UltraShort MSCI EAFE) and LULG (Leverage Shares 2X Long LULU Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. EFU is passively managed, while LULG is actively managed. At a correlation of -0.41, they often move in opposite directions. EFU charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for LULG.
Performance
EFU vs. LULG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EFU achieves a -17.12% return, which is significantly higher than LULG's -68.58% return.
EFU
- 1D
- -1.19%
- 1M
- -5.46%
- YTD
- -17.12%
- 6M
- -20.10%
- 1Y
- -30.37%
- 3Y*
- -24.51%
- 5Y*
- -15.28%
- 10Y*
- -19.70%
LULG
- 1D
- -1.59%
- 1M
- -10.00%
- YTD
- -68.58%
- 6M
- -60.69%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
EFU vs. LULG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
EFU ProShares UltraShort MSCI EAFE | -17.12% | -6.31% |
LULG Leverage Shares 2X Long LULU Daily ETF | -68.58% | 47.31% |
Correlation
The correlation between EFU and LULG is -0.41, 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 6, 2025 | -0.41 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
EFU vs. LULG — Risk / Return Rank
EFU
LULG
EFU vs. LULG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares UltraShort MSCI EAFE (EFU) and Leverage Shares 2X Long LULU Daily ETF (LULG). 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.
| EFU | LULG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.84 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.89 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.50 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| EFU | LULG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.99 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.46 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | -0.58 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.44 | -0.87 | +0.43 |
Drawdowns
EFU vs. LULG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EFU drawdown since its inception was -99.36%, which is greater than LULG's maximum drawdown of -73.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EFU and LULG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EFU | LULG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -99.36% | -73.18% | -26.18% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -34.19% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -64.29% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -75.42% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -90.41% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -99.35% | -70.90% | -28.45% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -87.13% | -33.71% | -53.42% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 20.24% | — | — |
Volatility
EFU vs. LULG - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EFU | LULG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 9.80% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 26.08% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 30.88% | 85.42% | -54.54% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 33.33% | 85.42% | -52.09% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 34.19% | 85.42% | -51.23% |
EFU vs. LULG - Expense Ratio Comparison
EFU has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than LULG's 0.75% expense ratio.
Dividends
EFU vs. LULG - Dividend Comparison
EFU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.45%, while LULG has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EFU ProShares UltraShort MSCI EAFE | 5.45% | 5.57% | 3.87% | 6.41% | 1.47% | 0.00% | 0.06% | 0.95% | 0.17% |
LULG Leverage Shares 2X Long LULU Daily ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
EFU and LULG have a correlation of -0.41, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, LULG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
LULG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for EFU.
EFU has the higher dividend yield at 5.45%, compared with 0.00% for LULG.
They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Leverage Shares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for EFU and 0.75% for LULG.
Find the right allocation for EFU and LULG
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer