GRAG vs. ETRL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GRAG (Leverage Shares 2X Long GRAB Daily ETF) and ETRL (GraniteShares 2x Long ETOR Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. Both are actively managed. At a 0.35 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GRAG charges 0.75%/yr vs 1.50%/yr for ETRL.

Performance

GRAG vs. ETRL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Leverage Shares 2X Long GRAB Daily ETF (GRAG) and GraniteShares 2x Long ETOR Daily ETF (ETRL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GRAG achieves a -58.07% return, which is significantly lower than ETRL's 3.01% return.

GRAG

• 1D: -9.91%
• 1M: -12.45%
• YTD: -58.07%
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ETRL

• 1D: -7.56%
• 1M: 1.12%
• YTD: 3.01%
• 6M: -31.77%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GRAG vs. ETRL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
GRAG Leverage Shares 2X Long GRAB Daily ETF	-58.07%	-7.82%
ETRL GraniteShares 2x Long ETOR Daily ETF	3.01%	-20.86%

Correlation

The correlation between GRAG and ETRL is 0.35, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 12, 2025	0.35

Return for Risk

GRAG vs. ETRL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Leverage Shares 2X Long GRAB Daily ETF (GRAG) and GraniteShares 2x Long ETOR Daily ETF (ETRL). 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.

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GRAG	ETRL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-1.25	-0.57	-0.68

Drawdowns

GRAG vs. ETRL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GRAG drawdown since its inception was -62.22%, smaller than the maximum ETRL drawdown of -76.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GRAG and ETRL.

Drawdown Indicators

	GRAG	ETRL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.22%	-76.44%	+14.22%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-62.22%	-49.43%	-12.79%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-39.65%	-47.50%	+7.85%

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	GRAG	ETRL	Difference
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	69.83%	105.94%	-36.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	69.83%	105.94%	-36.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	69.83%	105.94%	-36.11%

GRAG vs. ETRL - Expense Ratio Comparison

GRAG has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than ETRL's 1.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

GRAG vs. ETRL - Dividend Comparison

Neither GRAG nor ETRL has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GRAG and ETRL in my portfolio?

GRAG and ETRL have a correlation of 0.35, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, GRAG or ETRL?

On fees, GRAG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GRAG or ETRL?

GRAG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for ETRL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GRAG or ETRL?

GRAG and ETRL have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between GRAG and ETRL?

They also come from different issuers: Leverage Shares and GraniteShares. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for GRAG and 1.50% for ETRL.