LCDL vs. MSFL
LCDL (GraniteShares 2x Long LCID Daily ETF) and MSFL (GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds from GraniteShares. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, LCDL returned -99.04% vs -47.36% for MSFL. At a 0.15 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 1.15% expense ratio.
Performance
LCDL vs. MSFL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LCDL achieves a -91.18% return, which is significantly lower than MSFL's -39.05% return.
LCDL
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- -51.66%
- 6M
- -89.43%
- YTD
- -91.18%
- 1Y
- -99.04%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- -97.37%
MSFL
- 1D
- -2.47%
- 1M
- 8.09%
- 6M
- -30.55%
- YTD
- -39.05%
- 1Y
- -47.36%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- -16.57%
LCDL vs. MSFL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
LCDL GraniteShares 2x Long LCID Daily ETF | -91.18% | -87.31% |
MSFL GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF | -39.05% | 69.50% |
Correlation
The correlation between LCDL and MSFL 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 22, 2025 | 0.15 |
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
LCDL vs. MSFL — Risk / Return Rank
LCDL
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
MSFL
LCDL vs. MSFL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares 2x Long LCID Daily ETF (LCDL) and GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF (MSFL). 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.
| LCDL | MSFL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.21 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.93 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.66 | 0.86 | -0.20 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -1.00 | -0.77 | -0.24 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.19 | -1.31 | +0.12 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
LCDL vs. MSFL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LCDL drawdown since its inception was -99.25%, which is greater than MSFL's maximum drawdown of -62.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCDL and MSFL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LCDL | MSFL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -99.25% | -62.08% | -37.17% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -99.22% | -62.08% | -37.14% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -99.25% | -52.51% | -46.74% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -71.54% | -23.31% | -48.23% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 83.53% | 36.18% | +47.35% |
Volatility
LCDL vs. MSFL - Volatility Comparison
GraniteShares 2x Long LCID Daily ETF (LCDL) has a higher volatility of 89.58% compared to GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF (MSFL) at 20.21%. This indicates that LCDL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MSFL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LCDL | MSFL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 89.58% | 20.21% | +69.37% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 129.98% | 49.47% | +80.51% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 167.73% | 54.80% | +112.93% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 158.97% | 50.65% | +108.32% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 158.97% | 50.65% | +108.32% |
LCDL vs. MSFL - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both LCDL and MSFL have an expense ratio of 1.15%.
Dividends
LCDL vs. MSFL - Dividend Comparison
Neither LCDL nor MSFL has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
LCDL and MSFL 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.
LCDL has higher volatility (89.58%) compared to MSFL (20.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LCDL dropped -99.25% vs MSFL's -62.08%.
On 1-year performance, MSFL leads with -47.36% vs -99.04% for LCDL. Both ETFs have the same 1.15% expense ratio. On volatility, MSFL has been the lower-risk option at 20.21%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, MSFL has performed better with a -47.36% return vs -99.04%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
LCDL and MSFL have the same expense ratio: 1.15% per year.
LCDL and MSFL have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
LCDL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.66 vs -0.87), 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 LCDL and MSFL
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