MSFL vs. LULG
MSFL (GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF) and LULG (Leverage Shares 2X Long LULU Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. Both are actively managed. At a 0.24 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MSFL charges 1.15%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for LULG.
Performance
MSFL vs. LULG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MSFL achieves a -51.34% return, which is significantly higher than LULG's -75.54% return.
MSFL
- 1D
- -7.03%
- 1M
- -29.70%
- YTD
- -51.34%
- 6M
- -52.32%
- 1Y
- -55.20%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
LULG
- 1D
- -1.81%
- 1M
- -25.41%
- YTD
- -75.54%
- 6M
- -76.28%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
MSFL vs. LULG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
MSFL GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF | -51.34% | -12.83% |
LULG Leverage Shares 2X Long LULU Daily ETF | -75.54% | 55.59% |
Correlation
The correlation between MSFL and LULG is 0.24, 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 Nov 5, 2025 | 0.24 |
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
MSFL vs. LULG — Risk / Return Rank
MSFL
LULG
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
MSFL vs. LULG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF (MSFL) and Leverage Shares 2X Long LULU Daily ETF (LULG). 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 | LULG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.80 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.89 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.66 | — | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
MSFL vs. LULG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MSFL drawdown since its inception was -62.08%, smaller than the maximum LULG drawdown of -79.88%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MSFL and LULG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MSFL | LULG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -62.08% | -79.88% | +17.80% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -62.08% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -62.08% | -77.35% | +15.27% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -22.38% | -37.21% | +14.83% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 33.27% | — | — |
Volatility
MSFL vs. LULG - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MSFL | LULG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 23.64% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 47.15% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 52.46% | 88.29% | -35.83% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 50.17% | 88.29% | -38.12% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 50.17% | 88.29% | -38.12% |
MSFL vs. LULG - Expense Ratio Comparison
MSFL has a 1.15% expense ratio, which is higher than LULG's 0.75% expense ratio.
Dividends
MSFL vs. LULG - Dividend Comparison
Neither MSFL nor LULG has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
MSFL and LULG have a correlation of 0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, LULG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
LULG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 1.15% for MSFL.
MSFL and LULG have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
They also come from different issuers: GraniteShares and Leverage Shares. Their fees differ too: 1.15% for MSFL and 0.75% for LULG.
Find the right allocation for MSFL and LULG
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