LCDL vs. BAR

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

LCDL (GraniteShares 2x Long LCID Daily ETF) and BAR (GraniteShares Gold Trust) are both exchange-traded funds - LCDL is a Leveraged Equities fund actively managed by GraniteShares, while BAR is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM ($/ozt). LCDL is actively managed, while BAR is passively managed. Over the past year, LCDL returned -97.05% vs 28.36% for BAR. At a 0.06 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LCDL charges 1.15%/yr vs 0.17%/yr for BAR.

Performance

LCDL vs. BAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares 2x Long LCID Daily ETF (LCDL) and GraniteShares Gold Trust (BAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LCDL achieves a -82.24% return, which is significantly lower than BAR's 0.02% return.

LCDL

• 1D: -18.78%
• 1M: -33.34%
• YTD: -82.24%
• 6M: -89.30%
• 1Y: -97.05%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BAR

• 1D: -3.65%
• 1M: -7.97%
• YTD: 0.02%
• 6M: 2.66%
• 1Y: 28.36%
• 3Y*: 29.83%
• 5Y*: 17.73%
• 10Y*: —

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

LCDL vs. BAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
LCDL GraniteShares 2x Long LCID Daily ETF	-82.24%	-87.02%
BAR GraniteShares Gold Trust	0.02%	27.60%

Correlation

The correlation between LCDL and BAR is 0.11, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.11
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 23, 2025	0.06

Return for Risk

LCDL vs. BAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

LCDL

LCDL Risk / Return Rank: 2
LCDL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
LCDL Sortino Ratio Rank: 0
LCDL Omega Ratio Rank: 0
LCDL Calmar Ratio Rank: 0
LCDL Martin Ratio Rank: 3

BAR

BAR Risk / Return Rank: 30
BAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
BAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
BAR Omega Ratio Rank: 33
BAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
BAR Martin Ratio Rank: 27

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.

LCDL vs. BAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares 2x Long LCID Daily ETF (LCDL) and GraniteShares Gold Trust (BAR). 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.

	LCDL	BAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.64	1.07	-1.71
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-2.44	1.45	-3.89
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.75	1.22	-0.47
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.99	1.42	-2.41
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.26	3.60	-4.86
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LCDL vs. BAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LCDL Sharpe Ratio is -0.64, which is lower than the BAR Sharpe Ratio of 1.07. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LCDL and BAR, 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

	LCDL	BAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.64	1.07	-1.71
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.99	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.65	0.87	-1.52

Drawdowns

LCDL vs. BAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LCDL drawdown since its inception was -98.50%, which is greater than BAR's maximum drawdown of -21.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCDL and BAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	LCDL	BAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-98.50%	-21.53%	-76.97%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-98.45%	-20.05%	-78.40%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-20.05%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-20.91%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-98.50%	-20.05%	-78.45%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-69.12%	-6.46%	-62.66%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	76.86%	7.89%	+68.97%

Volatility

LCDL vs. BAR - Volatility Comparison

GraniteShares 2x Long LCID Daily ETF (LCDL) has a higher volatility of 41.04% compared to GraniteShares Gold Trust (BAR) at 5.66%. This indicates that LCDL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LCDL	BAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	41.04%	5.66%	+35.38%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	98.89%	23.34%	+75.55%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	151.10%	26.69%	+124.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	149.61%	17.97%	+131.64%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	149.61%	16.42%	+133.19%

LCDL vs. BAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

LCDL has a 1.15% expense ratio, which is higher than BAR's 0.17% expense ratio.

Dividends

LCDL vs. BAR - Dividend Comparison

Neither LCDL nor BAR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LCDL and BAR in my portfolio?

LCDL and BAR have a correlation of 0.11, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LCDL or BAR?

LCDL has higher volatility (41.04%) compared to BAR (5.66%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LCDL dropped -98.50% vs BAR's -21.53%.

Which ETF is better, LCDL or BAR?

On 1-year performance, BAR leads with 28.36% vs -97.05% for LCDL. On fees, BAR is cheaper at 0.17% per year. On volatility, BAR has been the lower-risk option at 5.66%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LCDL or BAR?

Over the 1-year period, BAR has performed better with a 28.36% return vs -97.05%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LCDL or BAR?

BAR is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 1.15% for LCDL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LCDL or BAR?

LCDL and BAR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between LCDL and BAR?

LCDL is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while BAR is Gold. Their fees differ too: 1.15% for LCDL and 0.17% for BAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.07 vs -0.64), 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.