MUU vs. INTW
MUU (Direxion Daily MU Bull 2X Shares) and INTW (GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. MUU is passively managed, while INTW is actively managed. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. MUU charges 1.01%/yr vs 1.50%/yr for INTW.
Performance
MUU vs. INTW - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
MUU
- 1D
- -26.28%
- 1M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 6M
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
INTW
- 1D
- -12.49%
- 1M
- 12.21%
- YTD
- 750.22%
- 6M
- 775.58%
- 1Y
- 1,964.55%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
MUU vs. INTW - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
MUU Direxion Daily MU Bull 2X Shares | -12.11% |
INTW GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF | 4.07% |
Correlation
The correlation between MUU and INTW is 0.90, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 16, 2026 | 0.90 |
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
MUU vs. INTW — Risk / Return Rank
MUU
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
INTW
MUU vs. INTW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Direxion Daily MU Bull 2X Shares (MUU) 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.
| MUU | INTW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.65 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 40.32 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 91.49 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
MUU vs. INTW - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MUU drawdown since its inception was -26.28%, smaller than the maximum INTW drawdown of -60.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MUU and INTW.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MUU | INTW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -26.28% | -60.58% | +34.30% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -49.34% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -26.28% | -12.49% | -13.79% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -10.19% | -29.66% | +19.47% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 21.70% | — |
Volatility
MUU vs. INTW - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MUU | INTW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 55.81% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 119.10% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 295.32% | 150.14% | +145.18% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 295.32% | 148.88% | +146.44% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 295.32% | 148.88% | +146.44% |
MUU vs. INTW - Expense Ratio Comparison
MUU has a 1.01% expense ratio, which is lower than INTW's 1.50% expense ratio.
Dividends
MUU vs. INTW - Dividend Comparison
Neither MUU nor INTW has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.90, MUU and INTW move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
On fees, MUU is cheaper at 1.01% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
MUU is cheaper with a 1.01% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for INTW.
MUU and INTW have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
They also come from different issuers: Direxion and GraniteShares. Their fees differ too: 1.01% for MUU and 1.50% for INTW.
Find the right allocation for MUU and INTW
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