MRAL vs. CIFG

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

MRAL (GraniteShares 2x Long MARA Daily ETF) and CIFG (Leverage Shares 2X Long CIFR Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. MRAL is passively managed, while CIFG is actively managed. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MRAL charges 1.50%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for CIFG.

Performance

MRAL vs. CIFG - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MRAL achieves a 74.43% return, which is significantly lower than CIFG's 96.56% return.

MRAL

• 1D: -2.03%
• 1M: 7.48%
• YTD: 74.43%
• 6M: 44.25%
• 1Y: -51.00%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CIFG

• 1D: -3.87%
• 1M: 42.24%
• YTD: 96.56%
• 6M: 67.07%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MRAL vs. CIFG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
MRAL GraniteShares 2x Long MARA Daily ETF	74.43%	-44.63%
CIFG Leverage Shares 2X Long CIFR Daily ETF	96.56%	-32.52%

Correlation

The correlation between MRAL and CIFG is 0.62, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 11, 2025	0.62

Return for Risk

MRAL vs. CIFG — Risk / Return Rank

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

MRAL

MRAL Risk / Return Rank: 8
MRAL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6
MRAL Sortino Ratio Rank: 12
MRAL Omega Ratio Rank: 12
MRAL Calmar Ratio Rank: 4
MRAL Martin Ratio Rank: 6

CIFG

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

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.

MRAL vs. CIFG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares 2x Long MARA Daily ETF (MRAL) and Leverage Shares 2X Long CIFR Daily ETF (CIFG). 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.

	MRAL	CIFG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.33	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.49	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.06	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.55	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.75	—	—

Drawdowns

MRAL vs. CIFG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MRAL drawdown since its inception was -93.46%, which is greater than CIFG's maximum drawdown of -71.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MRAL and CIFG.

Drawdown Indicators

	MRAL	CIFG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-93.46%	-71.71%	-21.75%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-93.46%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-77.03%	-10.44%	-66.59%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-56.79%	-35.54%	-21.25%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	68.29%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	MRAL	CIFG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	44.96%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	118.77%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	156.74%	205.93%	-49.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	164.85%	205.93%	-41.08%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	164.85%	205.93%	-41.08%

MRAL vs. CIFG - Expense Ratio Comparison

MRAL has a 1.50% expense ratio, which is higher than CIFG's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

MRAL vs. CIFG - Dividend Comparison

Neither MRAL nor CIFG has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MRAL and CIFG in my portfolio?

MRAL and CIFG have a correlation of 0.62, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, MRAL or CIFG?

On fees, CIFG 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, MRAL or CIFG?

CIFG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for MRAL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MRAL or CIFG?

MRAL and CIFG have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between MRAL and CIFG?

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