FBL vs. GGLL

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

FBL (GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF) and GGLL (Direxion Daily GOOGL Bull 2X Shares) are both Leveraged Equities funds. FBL is actively managed, while GGLL is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FBL returned 29.68%/yr vs 66.75%/yr for GGLL. A 0.51 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FBL charges 1.15%/yr vs 1.05%/yr for GGLL.

Performance

FBL vs. GGLL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF (FBL) and Direxion Daily GOOGL Bull 2X Shares (GGLL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FBL achieves a -25.99% return, which is significantly lower than GGLL's 23.97% return.

FBL

• 1D: -1.07%
• 1M: -4.94%
• YTD: -25.99%
• 6M: -23.80%
• 1Y: -36.08%
• 3Y*: 29.68%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GGLL

• 1D: -7.76%
• 1M: -13.17%
• YTD: 23.97%
• 6M: 20.53%
• 1Y: 285.33%
• 3Y*: 66.75%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FBL vs. GGLL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
FBL GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF	-25.99%	0.50%	112.72%	341.59%	-1.22%
GGLL Direxion Daily GOOGL Bull 2X Shares	23.97%	123.07%	48.88%	81.20%	-11.70%

Correlation

The correlation between FBL and GGLL is 0.39, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.39
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.49
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 14, 2022	0.51

The correlation between FBL and GGLL shifts across timeframes, from 0.39 (1 year) to 0.51 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FBL vs. GGLL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FBL	GGLL
Communication Services	66.7%	100.0%
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

FBL vs. GGLL — Risk / Return Rank

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

FBL

FBL Risk / Return Rank: 4
FBL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
FBL Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
FBL Omega Ratio Rank: 5
FBL Calmar Ratio Rank: 4
FBL Martin Ratio Rank: 4

GGLL

GGLL Risk / Return Rank: 94
GGLL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
GGLL Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
GGLL Omega Ratio Rank: 90
GGLL Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
GGLL Martin Ratio Rank: 93

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.

FBL vs. GGLL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF (FBL) and Direxion Daily GOOGL Bull 2X Shares (GGLL). 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.

	FBL	GGLL	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	-0.52	4.92	-5.44
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	-0.42	4.87	-5.29
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.95	1.58	-0.64
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.51	7.14	-7.65
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	-0.96	24.83	-25.79
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FBL vs. GGLL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FBL Sharpe Ratio is -0.52, which is lower than the GGLL Sharpe Ratio of 4.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FBL and GGLL, 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

	FBL	GGLL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.52	4.92	-5.44
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.06	1.00	+0.06

Drawdowns

FBL vs. GGLL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FBL drawdown since its inception was -61.15%, which is greater than GGLL's maximum drawdown of -52.81%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FBL and GGLL.

Drawdown Indicators

	FBL	GGLL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-61.15%	-52.81%	-8.34%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-61.03%	-38.39%	-22.64%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-61.15%	-52.81%	-8.34%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-52.04%	-19.89%	-32.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.38%	-15.16%	-1.22%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	32.62%	11.04%	+21.58%

Volatility

FBL vs. GGLL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF (FBL) is 15.51%, while Direxion Daily GOOGL Bull 2X Shares (GGLL) has a volatility of 16.60%. This indicates that FBL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GGLL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FBL	GGLL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	15.51%	16.60%	-1.09%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	52.53%	40.82%	+11.71%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	70.31%	58.47%	+11.84%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	70.96%	56.06%	+14.90%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	70.96%	56.06%	+14.90%

FBL vs. GGLL - Expense Ratio Comparison

FBL has a 1.15% expense ratio, which is higher than GGLL's 1.05% expense ratio.

Dividends

FBL vs. GGLL - Dividend Comparison

FBL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.80%, less than GGLL's 3.68% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
FBL GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF	2.80%	2.07%	0.00%	51.58%	0.00%
GGLL Direxion Daily GOOGL Bull 2X Shares	3.68%	4.16%	3.29%	2.05%	0.59%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FBL and GGLL in my portfolio?

FBL and GGLL have a correlation of 0.39, 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 GGLL?

GGLL has higher volatility (16.60%) compared to FBL (15.51%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FBL dropped -61.15% vs GGLL's -52.81%.

Which ETF is better, FBL or GGLL?

On 3-year performance, GGLL leads with 66.75% vs 29.68% for FBL. On fees, GGLL is cheaper at 1.05% per year. On volatility, FBL has been the lower-risk option at 15.51%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FBL or GGLL?

Over the 3-year period, GGLL has performed better with a 66.75% return vs 29.68%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FBL or GGLL?

GGLL is cheaper with a 1.05% expense ratio, compared with 1.15% for FBL.

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

GGLL has the higher dividend yield at 3.68%, compared with 2.80% for FBL.

What is the main difference between FBL and GGLL?

They also come from different issuers: GraniteShares and Direxion. Their fees differ too: 1.15% for FBL and 1.05% for GGLL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GGLL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.92 vs -0.52), 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.