INTW vs. CIFG

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

INTW (GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF) and CIFG (Leverage Shares 2X Long CIFR Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. Both are actively managed. At a 0.32 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. INTW charges 1.50%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for CIFG.

Performance

INTW vs. CIFG - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, INTW achieves a 750.22% return, which is significantly higher than CIFG's 96.56% return.

INTW

• 1D: -12.49%
• 1M: 12.21%
• YTD: 750.22%
• 6M: 775.58%
• 1Y: 1,964.55%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CIFG

• 1D: -3.87%
• 1M: 42.24%
• YTD: 96.56%
• 6M: 67.07%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

INTW vs. CIFG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
INTW GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF	750.22%	-18.92%
CIFG Leverage Shares 2X Long CIFR Daily ETF	96.56%	-32.52%

Correlation

The correlation between INTW and CIFG is 0.32, 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 11, 2025	0.32

Return for Risk

INTW vs. CIFG — Risk / Return Rank

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

INTW

INTW Risk / Return Rank: 98
INTW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
INTW Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
INTW Omega Ratio Rank: 94
INTW Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
INTW Martin Ratio Rank: 99

CIFG

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

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.

INTW vs. CIFG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW) and Leverage Shares 2X Long CIFR Daily ETF (CIFG). 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.

	INTW	CIFG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	13.25	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.13	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.65	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	40.32	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	91.49	—	—

Drawdowns

INTW vs. CIFG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum INTW drawdown since its inception was -60.58%, smaller than the maximum CIFG drawdown of -71.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for INTW and CIFG.

Drawdown Indicators

	INTW	CIFG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-60.58%	-71.71%	+11.13%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-49.34%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-12.49%	-10.44%	-2.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-29.66%	-35.54%	+5.88%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	21.70%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	INTW	CIFG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	55.81%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	119.10%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	150.14%	205.93%	-55.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	148.88%	205.93%	-57.05%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	148.88%	205.93%	-57.05%

INTW vs. CIFG - Expense Ratio Comparison

INTW has a 1.50% expense ratio, which is higher than CIFG's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

INTW vs. CIFG - Dividend Comparison

Neither INTW nor CIFG has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both INTW and CIFG in my portfolio?

INTW and CIFG have a correlation of 0.32, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, INTW or CIFG?

On fees, CIFG 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, INTW or CIFG?

CIFG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for INTW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, INTW or CIFG?

INTW and CIFG have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between INTW and CIFG?

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