MRA vs. FBL
MRA (GraniteShares Autocallable MARA ETF) and FBL (GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MRA is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by GraniteShares, while FBL is a Leveraged Equities fund actively managed by GraniteShares. Both are actively managed. At a 0.18 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MRA charges 1.07%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for FBL.
Performance
MRA vs. FBL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
MRA
- 1D
- 1.54%
- 1M
- -3.34%
- 6M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
FBL
- 1D
- -6.72%
- 1M
- 12.65%
- 6M
- -23.82%
- YTD
- -27.41%
- 1Y
- -43.28%
- 3Y*
- 25.32%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 69.82%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $35.89M | $38.31M | $37.47M | |
| $2.07K | $2.83K | $3.71K |
MRA vs. FBL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
MRA GraniteShares Autocallable MARA ETF | -2.10% |
FBL GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF | -7.09% |
Correlation
The correlation between MRA and FBL is 0.18, 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 May 27, 2026 | 0.18 |
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
MRA vs. FBL — Risk / Return Rank
MRA
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
FBL
MRA vs. FBL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares Autocallable MARA ETF (MRA) and GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF (FBL). 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.
| MRA | FBL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 0.94 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | -0.71 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | -1.14 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
MRA vs. FBL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MRA drawdown since its inception was -14.11%, smaller than the maximum FBL drawdown of -61.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MRA and FBL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MRA | FBL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -14.11% | -61.15% | +47.04% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -61.03% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -61.15% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -4.06% | -52.95% | +48.89% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.13% | -17.75% | +13.62% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 37.94% | — |
Volatility
MRA vs. FBL - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MRA | FBL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 30.78% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 62.58% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 41.26% | 77.88% | -36.62% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 41.26% | 72.38% | -31.12% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 41.26% | 72.38% | -31.12% |
MRA vs. FBL - Expense Ratio Comparison
MRA has a 1.07% expense ratio, which is lower than FBL's 1.09% expense ratio.
Dividends
MRA vs. FBL - Dividend Comparison
MRA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.51%, more than FBL's 2.86% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
FBL GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF | 2.86% | 2.07% | 0.00% | 51.58% |
MRA GraniteShares Autocallable MARA ETF | 7.51% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
MRA and FBL have a correlation of 0.18, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, MRA is cheaper at 1.07% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
MRA is cheaper with a 1.07% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for FBL.
MRA has the higher dividend yield at 7.51%, compared with 2.86% for FBL.
MRA is categorized as Derivative Income, while FBL is Leveraged Equities. Their fees differ too: 1.07% for MRA and 1.09% for FBL.
Find the right allocation for MRA and FBL
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