MSFL vs. PYPG
MSFL (GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF) and PYPG (Leverage Shares 2X Long PYPL Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, MSFL returned -48.75% vs -57.41% for PYPG. At a 0.37 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MSFL charges 1.15%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for PYPG.
Performance
MSFL vs. PYPG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MSFL achieves a -40.16% return, which is significantly lower than PYPG's -23.77% return.
MSFL
- 1D
- -3.67%
- 1M
- 5.99%
- 6M
- -33.37%
- YTD
- -40.16%
- 1Y
- -48.75%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
PYPG
- 1D
- -0.47%
- 1M
- 73.22%
- 6M
- -19.05%
- YTD
- -23.77%
- 1Y
- -57.41%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
MSFL vs. PYPG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
MSFL GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF | -40.16% | 54.30% |
PYPG Leverage Shares 2X Long PYPL Daily ETF | -23.77% | -20.19% |
Correlation
The correlation between MSFL and PYPG is 0.33, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.33 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 4, 2025 | 0.37 |
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. PYPG — Risk / Return Rank
MSFL
PYPG
MSFL vs. PYPG - 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 PYPL Daily ETF (PYPG). 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 | PYPG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.22 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.52 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.85 | 0.90 | -0.05 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.79 | -0.72 | -0.06 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.36 | -1.02 | -0.34 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
MSFL vs. PYPG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MSFL drawdown since its inception was -62.08%, smaller than the maximum PYPG drawdown of -79.52%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MSFL and PYPG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MSFL | PYPG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -62.08% | -79.52% | +17.44% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -62.08% | -79.52% | +17.44% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -53.37% | -61.90% | +8.53% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -23.21% | -41.38% | +18.17% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 35.88% | 56.44% | -20.56% |
Volatility
MSFL vs. PYPG - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF (MSFL) is 21.20%, while Leverage Shares 2X Long PYPL Daily ETF (PYPG) has a volatility of 34.49%. This indicates that MSFL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PYPG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MSFL | PYPG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 21.20% | 34.49% | -13.29% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 49.23% | 77.02% | -27.79% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 54.61% | 85.36% | -30.75% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 50.62% | 83.15% | -32.53% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 50.62% | 83.15% | -32.53% |
MSFL vs. PYPG - Expense Ratio Comparison
MSFL has a 1.15% expense ratio, which is higher than PYPG's 0.75% expense ratio.
Dividends
MSFL vs. PYPG - Dividend Comparison
Neither MSFL nor PYPG has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
MSFL and PYPG have a correlation of 0.33, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
PYPG has higher volatility (34.49%) compared to MSFL (21.20%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MSFL dropped -62.08% vs PYPG's -79.52%.
On 1-year performance, MSFL leads with -48.75% vs -57.41% for PYPG. On fees, PYPG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, MSFL has been the lower-risk option at 21.20%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, MSFL has performed better with a -48.75% return vs -57.41%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
PYPG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 1.15% for MSFL.
MSFL and PYPG 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 PYPG.
PYPG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.67 vs -0.90), 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.
Find the right allocation for MSFL and PYPG
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