FBL vs. DRLL

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

FBL (GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF) and DRLL (Strive U.S. Energy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FBL is a Leveraged Equities fund actively managed by GraniteShares, while DRLL is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Bloomberg US Energy Select Index. FBL is actively managed, while DRLL is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FBL returned 12.26%/yr vs 12.74%/yr for DRLL. Their -0.03 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. FBL charges 1.09%/yr vs 0.41%/yr for DRLL.

Performance

FBL vs. DRLL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF (FBL) and Strive U.S. Energy ETF (DRLL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FBL achieves a -39.43% return, which is significantly lower than DRLL's 36.69% return.

FBL

• 1D: 6.66%
• 1M: -11.35%
• 6M: -47.34%
• YTD: -39.43%
• 1Y: -56.50%
• 3Y*: 12.26%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 61.04%

DRLL

• 1D: 0.80%
• 1M: 14.19%
• 6M: 21.14%
• YTD: 36.69%
• 1Y: 44.82%
• 3Y*: 12.74%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.77%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
DRLL Strive U.S. Energy ETF	$463.62K	$500.96K	$563.89K
FBL GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF	$25.01M	$36.98M	$35.23M

FBL vs. DRLL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
FBL GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF	-39.43%	0.50%	112.72%	341.59%	-1.38%
DRLL Strive U.S. Energy ETF	36.69%	7.74%	0.02%	-1.84%	3.27%

Correlation

The correlation between FBL and DRLL is -0.25, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	-0.25
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	-0.06
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 13, 2022	-0.03

Over the past year, the inverse relationship between FBL and DRLL has strengthened: their correlation has moved from -0.03 to -0.25, meaning they now move in opposite directions more often than their long-term average.

FBL vs. DRLL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FBL	DRLL
Communication Services	66.7%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	0.9%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	99.1%
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

FBL vs. DRLL — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

FBL

FBL Risk / Return Rank: 2
FBL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3
FBL Sortino Ratio Rank: 3
FBL Omega Ratio Rank: 3
FBL Calmar Ratio Rank: 1
FBL Martin Ratio Rank: 0

DRLL

DRLL Risk / Return Rank: 70
DRLL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
DRLL Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
DRLL Omega Ratio Rank: 72
DRLL Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
DRLL Martin Ratio Rank: 53

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

FBL vs. DRLL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF (FBL) and Strive U.S. Energy ETF (DRLL). 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.

	FBL	DRLL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.78	1.82	-2.59
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.07	2.35	-3.42
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.87	1.30	-0.43
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.94	2.46	-3.40
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.52	6.27	-7.79

FBL vs. DRLL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FBL Sharpe Ratio is -0.78, which is lower than the DRLL Sharpe Ratio of 1.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FBL and DRLL, 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

FBL vs. DRLL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FBL drawdown since its inception was -63.20%, which is greater than DRLL's maximum drawdown of -23.73%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FBL and DRLL.

Drawdown Indicators

	FBL	DRLL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-63.20%	-23.73%	-39.47%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-63.09%	-16.99%	-46.10%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-63.20%	-23.73%	-39.47%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-60.75%	-4.30%	-56.45%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.01%	-8.14%	-9.87%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	38.96%	6.68%	+32.28%

Volatility

FBL vs. DRLL - Volatility Comparison

GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF (FBL) has a higher volatility of 31.44% compared to Strive U.S. Energy ETF (DRLL) at 6.71%. This indicates that FBL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DRLL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FBL	DRLL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	31.44%	6.71%	+24.73%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	61.35%	18.75%	+42.60%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	79.78%	23.03%	+56.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	72.81%	23.80%	+49.01%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	72.81%	23.80%	+49.01%

FBL vs. DRLL - Expense Ratio Comparison

FBL has a 1.09% expense ratio, which is higher than DRLL's 0.41% expense ratio.

Dividends

FBL vs. DRLL - Dividend Comparison

FBL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.42%, more than DRLL's 2.22% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
DRLL Strive U.S. Energy ETF	2.22%	2.99%	3.00%	3.01%	1.18%
FBL GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF	3.42%	2.07%	0.00%	51.58%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FBL and DRLL in my portfolio?

FBL and DRLL have a correlation of -0.25, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FBL or DRLL?

FBL has higher volatility (31.44%) compared to DRLL (6.71%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FBL dropped -63.20% vs DRLL's -23.73%.

Which ETF is better, FBL or DRLL?

On 3-year performance, DRLL leads with 12.74% vs 12.26% for FBL. On fees, DRLL is cheaper at 0.41% per year. On volatility, DRLL has been the lower-risk option at 6.71%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FBL or DRLL?

Over the 3-year period, DRLL has performed better with a 12.74% return vs 12.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FBL or DRLL?

DRLL is cheaper with a 0.41% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for FBL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FBL or DRLL?

FBL has the higher dividend yield at 3.42%, compared with 2.22% for DRLL.

What is the main difference between FBL and DRLL?

FBL is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while DRLL is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: GraniteShares and Strive. Their fees differ too: 1.09% for FBL and 0.41% for DRLL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DRLL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.82 vs -0.78), 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.