LULG vs. CRWL

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

LULG (Leverage Shares 2X Long LULU Daily ETF) and CRWL (GraniteShares 2x Long CRWD Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. Both are actively managed. At a 0.13 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LULG charges 0.75%/yr vs 1.50%/yr for CRWL.

Performance

LULG vs. CRWL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Leverage Shares 2X Long LULU Daily ETF (LULG) and GraniteShares 2x Long CRWD Daily ETF (CRWL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LULG achieves a -72.19% return, which is significantly lower than CRWL's 98.82% return.

LULG

• 1D: 2.05%
• 1M: -0.23%
• 6M: -72.43%
• YTD: -72.19%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CRWL

• 1D: 1.16%
• 1M: 17.63%
• 6M: 102.95%
• YTD: 98.82%
• 1Y: 65.52%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LULG vs. CRWL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
LULG Leverage Shares 2X Long LULU Daily ETF	-72.19%	55.59%
CRWL GraniteShares 2x Long CRWD Daily ETF	98.82%	-26.07%

Correlation

The correlation between LULG and CRWL is 0.13, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 5, 2025	0.13

Return for Risk

LULG vs. CRWL — Risk / Return Rank

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

LULG

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

CRWL

CRWL Risk / Return Rank: 28
CRWL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 24
CRWL Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
CRWL Omega Ratio Rank: 34
CRWL Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
CRWL Martin Ratio Rank: 21

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.

LULG vs. CRWL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Leverage Shares 2X Long LULU Daily ETF (LULG) and GraniteShares 2x Long CRWD Daily ETF (CRWL). 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.

	LULG	CRWL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	0.71	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	1.51	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.19	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	1.01	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	2.07	—

Drawdowns

LULG vs. CRWL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LULG drawdown since its inception was -79.88%, which is greater than CRWL's maximum drawdown of -64.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LULG and CRWL.

Drawdown Indicators

	LULG	CRWL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-79.88%	-64.99%	-14.89%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-64.99%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-74.24%	-12.32%	-61.92%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-39.70%	-24.33%	-15.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	31.80%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	LULG	CRWL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	26.50%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	77.27%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	87.42%	92.31%	-4.89%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	87.42%	95.85%	-8.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	87.42%	95.85%	-8.43%

LULG vs. CRWL - Expense Ratio Comparison

LULG has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than CRWL's 1.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

LULG vs. CRWL - Dividend Comparison

Neither LULG nor CRWL has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LULG and CRWL in my portfolio?

LULG and CRWL have a correlation of 0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, LULG or CRWL?

On fees, LULG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, LULG or CRWL?

LULG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for CRWL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LULG or CRWL?

LULG and CRWL have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between LULG and CRWL?

They also come from different issuers: Leverage Shares and GraniteShares. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for LULG and 1.50% for CRWL.