MSFL vs. INTW

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

MSFL (GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF) and INTW (GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds from GraniteShares. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, MSFL returned -48.29% vs 2279.34% for INTW. At a 0.11 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MSFL charges 1.15%/yr vs 1.50%/yr for INTW.

Performance

MSFL vs. INTW - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MSFL achieves a -47.07% return, which is significantly lower than INTW's 871.59% return.

MSFL

• 1D: -6.13%
• 1M: -24.42%
• YTD: -47.07%
• 6M: -47.46%
• 1Y: -48.29%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

INTW

• 1D: 10.59%
• 1M: 28.23%
• YTD: 871.59%
• 6M: 897.00%
• 1Y: 2,279.34%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MSFL vs. INTW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
MSFL GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF	-47.07%	26.40%
INTW GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF	871.59%	60.89%

Correlation

The correlation between MSFL and INTW is 0.02, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.02
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 13, 2025	0.11

MSFL vs. INTW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MSFL	INTW
Technology	66.6%	66.7%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

MSFL vs. INTW — Risk / Return Rank

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

MSFL

MSFL Risk / Return Rank: 2
MSFL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2
MSFL Sortino Ratio Rank: 2
MSFL Omega Ratio Rank: 2
MSFL Calmar Ratio Rank: 2
MSFL Martin Ratio Rank: 1

INTW

INTW Risk / Return Rank: 98
INTW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
INTW Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
INTW Omega Ratio Rank: 95
INTW Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
INTW Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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. INTW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF (MSFL) and GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW). 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	INTW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.93	15.45	-16.39
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.29	5.37	-6.66
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.83	1.68	-0.85
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.82	46.81	-47.62
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.48	106.28	-107.76

MSFL vs. INTW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MSFL Sharpe Ratio is -0.93, which is lower than the INTW Sharpe Ratio of 15.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MSFL and INTW, 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. INTW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MSFL drawdown since its inception was -59.39%, roughly equal to the maximum INTW drawdown of -60.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MSFL and INTW.

Drawdown Indicators

	MSFL	INTW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-59.39%	-60.58%	+1.19%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-59.39%	-49.34%	-10.05%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-58.76%	0.00%	-58.76%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-22.18%	-29.71%	+7.53%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	32.63%	21.69%	+10.94%

Volatility

MSFL vs. INTW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF (MSFL) is 22.11%, while GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW) has a volatility of 53.88%. This indicates that MSFL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than INTW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MSFL	INTW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	22.11%	53.88%	-31.77%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	46.47%	118.13%	-71.66%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	51.97%	149.77%	-97.80%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	49.94%	148.63%	-98.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	49.94%	148.63%	-98.69%

MSFL vs. INTW - Expense Ratio Comparison

MSFL has a 1.15% expense ratio, which is lower than INTW's 1.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

MSFL vs. INTW - Dividend Comparison

Neither MSFL nor INTW has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MSFL and INTW in my portfolio?

MSFL and INTW have a correlation of 0.02, 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 INTW?

INTW has higher volatility (53.88%) compared to MSFL (22.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MSFL dropped -59.39% vs INTW's -60.58%.

Which ETF is better, MSFL or INTW?

On 1-year performance, INTW leads with 2279.34% vs -48.29% for MSFL. On fees, MSFL is cheaper at 1.15% per year. On volatility, MSFL has been the lower-risk option at 22.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MSFL or INTW?

Over the 1-year period, INTW has performed better with a 2279.34% return vs -48.29%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MSFL or INTW?

MSFL is cheaper with a 1.15% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for INTW.

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

MSFL and INTW have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between MSFL and INTW?

Their fees differ too: 1.15% for MSFL and 1.50% for INTW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

INTW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (15.45 vs -0.93), 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.