MULL vs. CIFG

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

MULL (GraniteShares 2x Long MU Daily ETF) and CIFG (Leverage Shares 2X Long CIFR Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. Both are actively managed. At a 0.43 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MULL charges 1.50%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for CIFG.

Performance

MULL vs. CIFG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares 2x Long MU Daily ETF (MULL) and Leverage Shares 2X Long CIFR Daily ETF (CIFG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MULL achieves a 780.13% return, which is significantly higher than CIFG's 96.56% return.

MULL

• 1D: -26.45%
• 1M: 69.00%
• YTD: 780.13%
• 6M: 832.94%
• 1Y: 3,622.12%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CIFG

• 1D: -3.87%
• 1M: 42.24%
• YTD: 96.56%
• 6M: 67.07%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MULL vs. CIFG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
MULL GraniteShares 2x Long MU Daily ETF	780.13%	12.91%
CIFG Leverage Shares 2X Long CIFR Daily ETF	96.56%	-32.52%

Correlation

The correlation between MULL and CIFG is 0.43, 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 Dec 11, 2025	0.43

Return for Risk

MULL vs. CIFG — Risk / Return Rank

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

MULL

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

CIFG

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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.

MULL vs. CIFG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares 2x Long MU Daily ETF (MULL) and Leverage Shares 2X Long CIFR Daily ETF (CIFG). 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.

	MULL	CIFG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	25.24	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.61	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.71	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	69.24	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	221.31	—	—

Drawdowns

MULL vs. CIFG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MULL drawdown since its inception was -72.29%, roughly equal to the maximum CIFG drawdown of -71.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MULL and CIFG.

Drawdown Indicators

	MULL	CIFG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-72.29%	-71.71%	-0.58%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-53.09%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-26.45%	-10.44%	-16.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-20.52%	-35.54%	+15.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	16.58%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	MULL	CIFG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	74.91%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	119.83%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	145.72%	205.93%	-60.21%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	142.49%	205.93%	-63.44%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	142.49%	205.93%	-63.44%

MULL vs. CIFG - Expense Ratio Comparison

MULL has a 1.50% expense ratio, which is higher than CIFG's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

MULL vs. CIFG - Dividend Comparison

MULL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.04%, while CIFG has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025
CIFG Leverage Shares 2X Long CIFR Daily ETF	0.00%	0.00%
MULL GraniteShares 2x Long MU Daily ETF	0.04%	0.39%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MULL and CIFG in my portfolio?

MULL and CIFG have a correlation of 0.43, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, MULL or CIFG?

On fees, CIFG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, MULL or CIFG?

CIFG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for MULL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MULL or CIFG?

MULL has the higher dividend yield at 0.04%, compared with 0.00% for CIFG.

What is the main difference between MULL and CIFG?

They also come from different issuers: GraniteShares and Leverage Shares. Their fees differ too: 1.50% for MULL and 0.75% for CIFG.