INTW vs. FBL
INTW (GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF) and FBL (GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds from GraniteShares. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, INTW returned 1617.48% vs -29.78% for FBL. At a 0.28 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. INTW charges 1.50%/yr vs 1.15%/yr for FBL.
Performance
INTW vs. FBL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, INTW achieves a 562.71% return, which is significantly higher than FBL's -19.72% return.
INTW
- 1D
- 8.89%
- 1M
- 29.41%
- YTD
- 562.71%
- 6M
- 361.23%
- 1Y
- 1,617.48%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
FBL
- 1D
- 8.48%
- 1M
- 2.55%
- YTD
- -19.72%
- 6M
- -15.34%
- 1Y
- -29.78%
- 3Y*
- 33.25%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
INTW vs. FBL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
INTW GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF | 562.71% | 50.41% |
FBL GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF | -19.72% | -33.70% |
Correlation
The correlation between INTW and FBL is 0.25, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.25 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 14, 2025 | 0.28 |
INTW vs. FBL - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
INTW
FBL
Technology
-
Basic Materials
-
-
Communication Services
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
-
Consumer Defensive
-
-
Energy
-
-
Financial Services
-
-
Healthcare
-
-
Industrials
-
-
Real Estate
-
-
Utilities
-
-
Technology
INTW
FBL
-
Basic Materials
INTW
-
FBL
-
Communication Services
INTW
-
FBL
Consumer Cyclical
INTW
-
FBL
-
Consumer Defensive
INTW
-
FBL
-
Energy
INTW
-
FBL
-
Financial Services
INTW
-
FBL
-
Healthcare
INTW
-
FBL
-
Industrials
INTW
-
FBL
-
Real Estate
INTW
-
FBL
-
Utilities
INTW
-
FBL
-
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
INTW vs. FBL — Risk / Return Rank
INTW
FBL
INTW vs. FBL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW) and GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF (FBL). 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.
| INTW | FBL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +11.85 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +5.31 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.64 | 0.97 | +0.67 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 33.18 | -0.49 | +33.67 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 77.63 | -0.91 | +78.54 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| INTW | FBL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 11.42 | -0.42 | +11.85 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 3.39 | 1.12 | +2.27 |
Drawdowns
INTW vs. FBL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum INTW drawdown since its inception was -60.58%, roughly equal to the maximum FBL drawdown of -61.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for INTW and FBL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| INTW | FBL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -60.58% | -61.15% | +0.57% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -49.34% | -61.03% | +11.69% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -61.15% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -26.69% | -47.97% | +21.28% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -30.07% | -16.41% | -13.66% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 21.05% | 32.76% | -11.71% |
Volatility
INTW vs. FBL - Volatility Comparison
GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW) has a higher volatility of 48.71% compared to GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF (FBL) at 17.63%. This indicates that INTW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FBL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| INTW | FBL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 48.71% | 17.63% | +31.08% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 111.40% | 53.15% | +58.25% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 143.36% | 70.42% | +72.94% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 145.22% | 71.06% | +74.16% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 145.22% | 71.06% | +74.16% |
INTW vs. FBL - Expense Ratio Comparison
INTW has a 1.50% expense ratio, which is higher than FBL's 1.15% expense ratio.
Dividends
INTW vs. FBL - Dividend Comparison
INTW has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FBL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.58%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
FBL GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF | 2.58% | 2.07% | 0.00% | 51.58% |
INTW GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
INTW and FBL 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.
INTW has higher volatility (48.71%) compared to FBL (17.63%). In terms of maximum drawdown, INTW dropped -60.58% vs FBL's -61.15%.
On 1-year performance, INTW leads with 1617.48% vs -29.78% for FBL. On fees, FBL is cheaper at 1.15% per year. On volatility, FBL has been the lower-risk option at 17.63%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, INTW has performed better with a 1617.48% return vs -29.78%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
FBL is cheaper with a 1.15% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for INTW.
FBL has the higher dividend yield at 2.58%, compared with 0.00% for INTW.
Their fees differ too: 1.50% for INTW and 1.15% for FBL.
INTW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.42 vs -0.42), 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.
Find the right allocation for INTW and FBL
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