MSFL vs. IBIC

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

MSFL (GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF) and IBIC (iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MSFL is a Leveraged Equities fund actively managed by GraniteShares, while IBIC is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the ICE 2026 Maturity US Inflation-Linked Treasury Index. MSFL is actively managed, while IBIC is passively managed. Over the past year, MSFL returned -25.09% vs 4.49% for IBIC. At a correlation of -0.07, they often move in opposite directions. MSFL charges 1.15%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for IBIC.

Performance

MSFL vs. IBIC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF (MSFL) and iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MSFL achieves a -27.39% return, which is significantly lower than IBIC's 2.34% return.

MSFL

• 1D: 0.41%
• 1M: 6.90%
• YTD: -27.39%
• 6M: -26.98%
• 1Y: -25.09%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IBIC

• 1D: -0.03%
• 1M: 0.28%
• YTD: 2.34%
• 6M: 2.50%
• 1Y: 4.49%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MSFL vs. IBIC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MSFL GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF	-27.39%	16.99%	-9.07%
IBIC iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF	2.34%	4.96%	4.67%

Correlation

The correlation between MSFL and IBIC 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 19, 2024	-0.07

Return for Risk

MSFL vs. IBIC — Risk / Return Rank

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

MSFL

MSFL Risk / Return Rank: 5
MSFL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5
MSFL Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
MSFL Omega Ratio Rank: 5
MSFL Calmar Ratio Rank: 5
MSFL Martin Ratio Rank: 5

IBIC

IBIC Risk / Return Rank: 98
IBIC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
IBIC Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
IBIC Omega Ratio Rank: 98
IBIC Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
IBIC Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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. IBIC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF (MSFL) and iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC). 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.

	MSFL	IBIC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.50	4.99	-5.49
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.42	9.01	-9.43
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.94	2.22	-1.28
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.42	17.09	-17.51
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.82	66.52	-67.33
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MSFL vs. IBIC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MSFL Sharpe Ratio is -0.50, which is lower than the IBIC Sharpe Ratio of 4.99. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MSFL and IBIC, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	MSFL	IBIC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.50	4.99	-5.49
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.22	3.48	-3.70

Drawdowns

MSFL vs. IBIC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MSFL drawdown since its inception was -59.39%, which is greater than IBIC's maximum drawdown of -0.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MSFL and IBIC.

Drawdown Indicators

	MSFL	IBIC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-59.39%	-0.90%	-58.49%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-59.39%	-0.26%	-59.13%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-43.42%	-0.16%	-43.26%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-21.62%	-0.10%	-21.52%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	30.73%	0.07%	+30.66%

Volatility

MSFL vs. IBIC - Volatility Comparison

GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF (MSFL) has a higher volatility of 19.76% compared to iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC) at 0.32%. This indicates that MSFL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBIC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MSFL	IBIC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	19.76%	0.32%	+19.44%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	45.21%	0.67%	+44.54%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	50.18%	0.90%	+49.28%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	49.55%	1.58%	+47.97%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	49.55%	1.58%	+47.97%

MSFL vs. IBIC - Expense Ratio Comparison

MSFL has a 1.15% expense ratio, which is higher than IBIC's 0.10% expense ratio.

Dividends

MSFL vs. IBIC - Dividend Comparison

MSFL has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IBIC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.59%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
IBIC iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF	3.59%	4.43%	4.65%	0.83%
MSFL GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MSFL and IBIC in my portfolio?

MSFL and IBIC 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 IBIC?

MSFL has higher volatility (19.76%) compared to IBIC (0.32%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MSFL dropped -59.39% vs IBIC's -0.90%.

Which ETF is better, MSFL or IBIC?

On 1-year performance, IBIC leads with 4.49% vs -25.09% for MSFL. On fees, IBIC is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, IBIC has been the lower-risk option at 0.32%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MSFL or IBIC?

Over the 1-year period, IBIC has performed better with a 4.49% return vs -25.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MSFL or IBIC?

IBIC is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 1.15% for MSFL.

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

IBIC has the higher dividend yield at 3.59%, compared with 0.00% for MSFL.

What is the main difference between MSFL and IBIC?

MSFL is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while IBIC is Inflation-Protected Bonds. They also come from different issuers: GraniteShares and iShares. Their fees differ too: 1.15% for MSFL and 0.10% for IBIC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBIC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.99 vs -0.50), 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.