FCXG vs. TSMU
FCXG (Leverage Shares 2X Long FCX Daily ETF) and TSMU (GraniteShares 2x Long TSM Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. FCXG is passively managed, while TSMU is actively managed. Their 0.56 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. FCXG charges 0.75%/yr vs 1.50%/yr for TSMU.
Performance
FCXG vs. TSMU - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
FCXG
- 1D
- -2.84%
- 1M
- 3.11%
- 6M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
TSMU
- 1D
- 0.37%
- 1M
- -15.84%
- 6M
- 25.27%
- YTD
- 45.22%
- 1Y
- 118.59%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 75.77%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $223.64K | $203.00K | $533.52K | |
| $5.79M | $7.14M | $6.95M |
FCXG vs. TSMU - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
FCXG Leverage Shares 2X Long FCX Daily ETF | -14.53% |
TSMU GraniteShares 2x Long TSM Daily ETF | 5.82% |
Correlation
The correlation between FCXG and TSMU is 0.56, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 19, 2026 | 0.56 |
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
FCXG vs. TSMU — Risk / Return Rank
FCXG
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
TSMU
FCXG vs. TSMU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Leverage Shares 2X Long FCX Daily ETF (FCXG) and GraniteShares 2x Long TSM Daily ETF (TSMU). 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.
| FCXG | TSMU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.24 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 2.64 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 8.05 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
FCXG vs. TSMU - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FCXG drawdown since its inception was -44.55%, smaller than the maximum TSMU drawdown of -63.73%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FCXG and TSMU.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FCXG | TSMU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -44.55% | -63.73% | +19.18% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -40.67% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -31.19% | -30.97% | -0.22% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -23.43% | -16.13% | -7.30% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 13.35% | — |
Volatility
FCXG vs. TSMU - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FCXG | TSMU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 28.06% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 66.24% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 107.68% | 81.66% | +26.02% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 107.68% | 84.08% | +23.60% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 107.68% | 84.08% | +23.60% |
FCXG vs. TSMU - Expense Ratio Comparison
FCXG has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than TSMU's 1.50% expense ratio.
Dividends
FCXG vs. TSMU - Dividend Comparison
Neither FCXG nor TSMU has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
FCXG and TSMU have a correlation of 0.56, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, FCXG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
FCXG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for TSMU.
FCXG and TSMU have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
They also come from different issuers: Leverage Shares and GraniteShares. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for FCXG and 1.50% for TSMU.
Find the right allocation for FCXG and TSMU
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