MSFL vs. DURA

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

MSFL (GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF) and DURA (VanEck Vectors Morningstar Durable Dividend ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MSFL is a Leveraged Equities fund actively managed by GraniteShares, while DURA is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Morningstar US Dividend Valuation Index. MSFL is actively managed, while DURA is passively managed. Over the past year, MSFL returned -55.20% vs 21.18% for DURA. At a 0.01 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MSFL charges 1.15%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for DURA.

Performance

MSFL vs. DURA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF (MSFL) and VanEck Vectors Morningstar Durable Dividend ETF (DURA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MSFL achieves a -51.34% return, which is significantly lower than DURA's 12.59% return.

MSFL

• 1D: -7.03%
• 1M: -29.70%
• YTD: -51.34%
• 6M: -52.32%
• 1Y: -55.20%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

DURA

• 1D: 0.73%
• 1M: -1.80%
• YTD: 12.59%
• 6M: 12.06%
• 1Y: 21.18%
• 3Y*: 10.26%
• 5Y*: 7.59%
• 10Y*: —

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

MSFL vs. DURA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MSFL GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF	-51.34%	16.99%	-8.21%
DURA VanEck Vectors Morningstar Durable Dividend ETF	12.59%	7.61%	7.38%

Correlation

The correlation between MSFL and DURA is -0.15, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.15
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 18, 2024	0.01

The correlation between MSFL and DURA shifts across timeframes, from -0.15 (1 year) to 0.01 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

MSFL vs. DURA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MSFL	DURA
Technology	66.6%	11.2%
Basic Materials	-	1.9%
Communication Services	-	8.8%
Consumer Cyclical	-	6.3%
Consumer Defensive	-	22.1%
Energy	-	13.8%
Financial Services	-	9.0%
Healthcare	-	14.3%
Industrials	-	6.0%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	6.6%

Return for Risk

MSFL vs. DURA — Risk / Return Rank

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

MSFL

MSFL Risk / Return Rank: 1
MSFL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1
MSFL Sortino Ratio Rank: 1
MSFL Omega Ratio Rank: 1
MSFL Calmar Ratio Rank: 1
MSFL Martin Ratio Rank: 1

DURA

DURA Risk / Return Rank: 55
DURA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
DURA Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
DURA Omega Ratio Rank: 59
DURA Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
DURA Martin Ratio Rank: 64

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.

MSFL vs. DURA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF (MSFL) and VanEck Vectors Morningstar Durable Dividend ETF (DURA). 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.

	MSFL	DURA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-1.06	1.44	-2.50
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.61	2.16	-3.76
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.80	1.32	-0.52
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.89	2.49	-3.38
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.66	10.04	-11.70

MSFL vs. DURA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MSFL Sharpe Ratio is -1.06, which is lower than the DURA Sharpe Ratio of 1.44. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MSFL and DURA, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

MSFL vs. DURA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MSFL drawdown since its inception was -62.08%, which is greater than DURA's maximum drawdown of -33.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MSFL and DURA.

Drawdown Indicators

	MSFL	DURA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.08%	-33.15%	-28.93%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-62.08%	-8.53%	-53.55%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-14.27%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-15.80%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-62.08%	-2.45%	-59.63%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-22.38%	-3.91%	-18.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	33.27%	2.11%	+31.16%

Volatility

MSFL vs. DURA - Volatility Comparison

GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF (MSFL) has a higher volatility of 23.64% compared to VanEck Vectors Morningstar Durable Dividend ETF (DURA) at 2.98%. This indicates that MSFL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DURA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MSFL	DURA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	23.64%	2.98%	+20.66%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	47.15%	7.78%	+39.37%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	52.46%	14.80%	+37.66%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	50.17%	13.61%	+36.56%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	50.17%	16.94%	+33.23%

MSFL vs. DURA - Expense Ratio Comparison

MSFL has a 1.15% expense ratio, which is higher than DURA's 0.29% expense ratio.

Dividends

MSFL vs. DURA - Dividend Comparison

MSFL has not paid dividends to shareholders, while DURA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.30%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
DURA VanEck Vectors Morningstar Durable Dividend ETF	3.30%	3.59%	3.33%	3.58%	3.01%	2.89%	3.49%	3.83%	0.66%
MSFL GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MSFL and DURA in my portfolio?

MSFL and DURA have a correlation of -0.15, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MSFL or DURA?

MSFL has higher volatility (23.64%) compared to DURA (2.98%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MSFL dropped -62.08% vs DURA's -33.15%.

Which ETF is better, MSFL or DURA?

On 1-year performance, DURA leads with 21.18% vs -55.20% for MSFL. On fees, DURA is cheaper at 0.29% per year. On volatility, DURA has been the lower-risk option at 2.98%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MSFL or DURA?

Over the 1-year period, DURA has performed better with a 21.18% return vs -55.20%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MSFL or DURA?

DURA is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 1.15% for MSFL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MSFL or DURA?

DURA has the higher dividend yield at 3.30%, compared with 0.00% for MSFL.

What is the main difference between MSFL and DURA?

MSFL is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while DURA is Large Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: GraniteShares and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 1.15% for MSFL and 0.29% for DURA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DURA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.44 vs -1.06), 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.