LCDL vs. ILS

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

LCDL (GraniteShares 2x Long LCID Daily ETF) and ILS (Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LCDL is a Leveraged Equities fund actively managed by GraniteShares, while ILS is a Nontraditional Bonds fund actively managed by Brookmont. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, LCDL returned -97.05% vs 7.59% for ILS. At a correlation of -0.07, they often move in opposite directions. LCDL charges 1.15%/yr vs 1.58%/yr for ILS.

Performance

LCDL vs. ILS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares 2x Long LCID Daily ETF (LCDL) and Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF (ILS). 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 ILS's 1.86% return.

LCDL

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

ILS

• 1D: 0.13%
• 1M: 0.40%
• YTD: 1.86%
• 6M: 2.30%
• 1Y: 7.59%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LCDL vs. ILS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
LCDL GraniteShares 2x Long LCID Daily ETF	-82.24%	-87.02%
ILS Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF	1.86%	5.96%

Correlation

The correlation between LCDL and ILS is -0.04, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.04
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 23, 2025	-0.07

Return for Risk

LCDL vs. ILS — 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

ILS

ILS Risk / Return Rank: 94
ILS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
ILS Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
ILS Omega Ratio Rank: 93
ILS Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
ILS Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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. ILS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares 2x Long LCID Daily ETF (LCDL) and Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF (ILS). 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	ILS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.64	2.75	-3.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-2.44	4.51	-6.95
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.75	1.61	-0.86
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.99	13.78	-14.77
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.26	46.07	-47.33
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. ILS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LCDL Sharpe Ratio is -0.64, which is lower than the ILS Sharpe Ratio of 2.75. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LCDL and ILS, 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	ILS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.64	2.75	-3.40
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.65	1.90	-2.55

Drawdowns

LCDL vs. ILS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LCDL drawdown since its inception was -98.50%, which is greater than ILS's maximum drawdown of -1.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCDL and ILS.

Drawdown Indicators

	LCDL	ILS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-98.50%	-1.56%	-96.94%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-98.45%	-0.55%	-97.90%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-98.50%	0.00%	-98.50%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-69.12%	-0.25%	-68.87%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	76.86%	0.17%	+76.69%

Volatility

LCDL vs. ILS - Volatility Comparison

GraniteShares 2x Long LCID Daily ETF (LCDL) has a higher volatility of 41.04% compared to Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF (ILS) at 0.88%. This indicates that LCDL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ILS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LCDL	ILS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	41.04%	0.88%	+40.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	98.89%	1.69%	+97.20%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	151.10%	2.77%	+148.33%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	149.61%	3.37%	+146.24%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	149.61%	3.37%	+146.24%

LCDL vs. ILS - Expense Ratio Comparison

LCDL has a 1.15% expense ratio, which is lower than ILS's 1.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

LCDL vs. ILS - Dividend Comparison

LCDL has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ILS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.09%.

Position	TTM	2025
ILS Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF	8.09%	6.06%
LCDL GraniteShares 2x Long LCID Daily ETF	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LCDL and ILS in my portfolio?

LCDL and ILS have a correlation of -0.04, 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 ILS?

LCDL has higher volatility (41.04%) compared to ILS (0.88%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LCDL dropped -98.50% vs ILS's -1.56%.

Which ETF is better, LCDL or ILS?

On 1-year performance, ILS leads with 7.59% vs -97.05% for LCDL. On fees, LCDL is cheaper at 1.15% per year. On volatility, ILS has been the lower-risk option at 0.88%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LCDL or ILS?

Over the 1-year period, ILS has performed better with a 7.59% 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 ILS?

LCDL is cheaper with a 1.15% expense ratio, compared with 1.58% for ILS.

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

ILS has the higher dividend yield at 8.09%, compared with 0.00% for LCDL.

What is the main difference between LCDL and ILS?

LCDL is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while ILS is Nontraditional Bonds. They also come from different issuers: GraniteShares and Brookmont. Their fees differ too: 1.15% for LCDL and 1.58% for ILS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ILS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.75 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.