MSFL vs. NRGU

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

MSFL (GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF) and NRGU (MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN) are both Leveraged Equities funds. MSFL is actively managed, while NRGU is passively managed. Over the past year, MSFL returned -25.09% vs 171.19% for NRGU. At a 0.02 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MSFL charges 1.15%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for NRGU.

Performance

MSFL vs. NRGU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF (MSFL) and MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN (NRGU). 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 NRGU's 125.94% return.

MSFL

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

NRGU

• 1D: -1.47%
• 1M: -6.46%
• YTD: 125.94%
• 6M: 93.16%
• 1Y: 171.19%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MSFL vs. NRGU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
MSFL GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF	-27.39%	21.87%
NRGU MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN	125.94%	-33.00%

Correlation

The correlation between MSFL and NRGU is -0.11, 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	-0.11
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 21, 2025	0.02

The correlation between MSFL and NRGU shifts across timeframes, from -0.11 (1 year) to 0.02 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

MSFL vs. NRGU - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MSFL	NRGU
Technology	66.6%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	100.0%
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

MSFL vs. NRGU — 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

NRGU

NRGU Risk / Return Rank: 64
NRGU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
NRGU Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
NRGU Omega Ratio Rank: 53
NRGU Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
NRGU Martin Ratio Rank: 61

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. NRGU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF (MSFL) and MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN (NRGU). 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	NRGU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.50	2.31	-2.81
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.42	2.55	-2.97
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.94	1.32	-0.38
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.42	4.31	-4.74
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.82	10.74	-11.56
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. NRGU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MSFL Sharpe Ratio is -0.50, which is lower than the NRGU Sharpe Ratio of 2.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MSFL and NRGU, 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	NRGU	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.50	2.31	-2.81
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.22	0.43	-0.65

Drawdowns

MSFL vs. NRGU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MSFL drawdown since its inception was -59.39%, roughly equal to the maximum NRGU drawdown of -57.50%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MSFL and NRGU.

Drawdown Indicators

	MSFL	NRGU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-59.39%	-57.50%	-1.89%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-59.39%	-39.95%	-19.44%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-43.42%	-22.07%	-21.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-21.62%	-25.41%	+3.79%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	30.73%	16.01%	+14.72%

Volatility

MSFL vs. NRGU - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF (MSFL) is 19.76%, while MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN (NRGU) has a volatility of 31.62%. This indicates that MSFL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NRGU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MSFL	NRGU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	19.76%	31.62%	-11.86%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	45.21%	61.19%	-15.98%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	50.18%	75.02%	-24.84%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	49.55%	89.03%	-39.48%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	49.55%	89.03%	-39.48%

MSFL vs. NRGU - Expense Ratio Comparison

MSFL has a 1.15% expense ratio, which is higher than NRGU's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

MSFL vs. NRGU - Dividend Comparison

Neither MSFL nor NRGU has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MSFL and NRGU in my portfolio?

MSFL and NRGU have a correlation of -0.11, 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 NRGU?

NRGU has higher volatility (31.62%) compared to MSFL (19.76%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MSFL dropped -59.39% vs NRGU's -57.50%.

Which ETF is better, MSFL or NRGU?

On 1-year performance, NRGU leads with 171.19% vs -25.09% for MSFL. On fees, NRGU is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, MSFL has been the lower-risk option at 19.76%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MSFL or NRGU?

Over the 1-year period, NRGU has performed better with a 171.19% 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 NRGU?

NRGU is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.15% for MSFL.

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

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

What is the main difference between MSFL and NRGU?

They also come from different issuers: GraniteShares and BMO. Their fees differ too: 1.15% for MSFL and 0.95% for NRGU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NRGU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.31 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.