PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
LCDL vs. MULL
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

LCDL vs. MULL - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LCDL achieves a -82.24% return, which is significantly lower than MULL's 545.56% return.


LCDL

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

MULL

1D
-26.21%
1M
49.48%
YTD
545.56%
6M
797.25%
1Y
3,465.86%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

LCDL vs. MULL - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025
LCDL
GraniteShares 2x Long LCID Daily ETF
-82.24%-87.02%
MULL
GraniteShares 2x Long MU Daily ETF
545.56%1,116.71%

Correlation

The correlation between LCDL and MULL is 0.23, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.23

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 23, 2025

0.24

LCDL vs. MULL - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
LCDL
MULL

Consumer Cyclical

66.7%

-

Basic Materials

-

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

-

Financial Services

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Industrials

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Technology

-

66.7%

Utilities

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

LCDL
66.7%
MULL

-

Basic Materials

LCDL

-

MULL

-

Communication Services

LCDL

-

MULL

-

Consumer Defensive

LCDL

-

MULL

-

Energy

LCDL

-

MULL

-

Financial Services

LCDL

-

MULL

-

Healthcare

LCDL

-

MULL

-

Industrials

LCDL

-

MULL

-

Real Estate

LCDL

-

MULL

-

Technology

LCDL

-

MULL
66.7%

Utilities

LCDL

-

MULL

-

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. MULL — Risk / Return Rank

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

LCDL
LCDL Risk / Return Rank: 22
Overall Rank
LCDL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LCDL Sortino Ratio Rank: 00
Sortino Ratio Rank
LCDL Omega Ratio Rank: 00
Omega Ratio Rank
LCDL Calmar Ratio Rank: 00
Calmar Ratio Rank
LCDL Martin Ratio Rank: 33
Martin Ratio Rank

MULL
MULL Risk / Return Rank: 9898
Overall Rank
MULL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100100
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MULL Sortino Ratio Rank: 9797
Sortino Ratio Rank
MULL Omega Ratio Rank: 9696
Omega Ratio Rank
MULL Calmar Ratio Rank: 100100
Calmar Ratio Rank
MULL Martin Ratio Rank: 9999
Martin Ratio Rank
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. MULL - 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 MU Daily ETF (MULL). 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.


LCDLMULLDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-26.45

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-8.25

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

0.75

1.75

-1.00

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

-0.99

66.24

-67.23

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

-1.26

219.41

-220.67

LCDL vs. MULL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LCDL Sharpe Ratio is -0.64, which is lower than the MULL Sharpe Ratio of 25.81. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LCDL and MULL, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


LCDLMULLDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.64

25.81

-26.45

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

-0.65

5.14

-5.78

Drawdowns

LCDL vs. MULL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LCDL drawdown since its inception was -98.50%, which is greater than MULL's maximum drawdown of -72.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCDL and MULL.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


LCDLMULLDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-98.50%

-72.29%

-26.21%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-98.45%

-53.09%

-45.36%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-98.50%

-37.74%

-60.76%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-69.12%

-20.65%

-48.47%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

76.86%

16.00%

+60.86%

Volatility

LCDL vs. MULL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for GraniteShares 2x Long LCID Daily ETF (LCDL) is 41.04%, while GraniteShares 2x Long MU Daily ETF (MULL) has a volatility of 66.70%. This indicates that LCDL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MULL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


LCDLMULLDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

41.04%

66.70%

-25.66%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

98.89%

111.86%

-12.97%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

151.10%

136.34%

+14.76%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

149.61%

138.33%

+11.28%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

149.61%

138.33%

+11.28%

LCDL vs. MULL - Expense Ratio Comparison

LCDL has a 1.15% expense ratio, which is lower than MULL's 1.50% expense ratio.


Dividends

LCDL vs. MULL - Dividend Comparison

LCDL has not paid dividends to shareholders, while MULL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.06%.


Frequently Asked Questions


LCDL and MULL have a correlation of 0.23, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

MULL has higher volatility (66.70%) compared to LCDL (41.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LCDL dropped -98.50% vs MULL's -72.29%.

On 1-year performance, MULL leads with 3465.86% vs -97.05% for LCDL. On fees, LCDL is cheaper at 1.15% per year. On volatility, LCDL has been the lower-risk option at 41.04%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, MULL has performed better with a 3465.86% return vs -97.05%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

LCDL is cheaper with a 1.15% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for MULL.

MULL has the higher dividend yield at 0.06%, compared with 0.00% for LCDL.

Their fees differ too: 1.15% for LCDL and 1.50% for MULL.

MULL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (25.81 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for LCDL and MULL

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