PLA vs. FBL

Last updated Jun 30, 2026

PLA (GraniteShares Autocallable PLTR ETF) and FBL (GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PLA is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by GraniteShares, while FBL is a Leveraged Equities fund actively managed by GraniteShares. Both are actively managed. At a 0.43 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PLA charges 1.07%/yr vs 1.15%/yr for FBL.

Performance

PLA vs. FBL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares Autocallable PLTR ETF (PLA) and GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF (FBL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

PLA

• 1D: 1.29%
• 1M: -7.63%
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FBL

• 1D: 4.71%
• 1M: -22.68%
• YTD: -35.71%
• 6M: -35.53%
• 1Y: -52.85%
• 3Y*: 21.11%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PLA vs. FBL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
PLA GraniteShares Autocallable PLTR ETF	-4.47%
FBL GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF	-17.68%

Correlation

The correlation between PLA and FBL 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 May 19, 2026	0.43

Return for Risk

PLA vs. FBL — Risk / Return Rank

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

PLA

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

FBL

FBL Risk / Return Rank: 3
FBL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
FBL Sortino Ratio Rank: 4
FBL Omega Ratio Rank: 3
FBL Calmar Ratio Rank: 2
FBL Martin Ratio Rank: 1

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.

PLA vs. FBL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares Autocallable PLTR ETF (PLA) and GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF (FBL). 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.

	PLA	FBL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	-0.73	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	-0.95	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	0.88	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	-0.87	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	-1.48	—

Drawdowns

PLA vs. FBL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PLA drawdown since its inception was -12.39%, smaller than the maximum FBL drawdown of -61.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PLA and FBL.

Drawdown Indicators

	PLA	FBL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.39%	-61.15%	+48.76%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-61.03%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-61.15%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.75%	-58.34%	+49.59%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.45%	-17.15%	+12.70%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	35.84%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	PLA	FBL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	25.95%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	56.36%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.88%	72.47%	-48.59%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.88%	71.31%	-47.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.88%	71.31%	-47.43%

PLA vs. FBL - Expense Ratio Comparison

PLA has a 1.07% expense ratio, which is lower than FBL's 1.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

PLA vs. FBL - Dividend Comparison

PLA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.79%, less than FBL's 3.23% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
FBL GraniteShares 2x Long META Daily ETF	3.23%	2.07%	0.00%	51.58%
PLA GraniteShares Autocallable PLTR ETF	1.79%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PLA and FBL in my portfolio?

PLA and FBL 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, PLA or FBL?

On fees, PLA is cheaper at 1.07% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, PLA or FBL?

PLA is cheaper with a 1.07% expense ratio, compared with 1.15% for FBL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, PLA or FBL?

FBL has the higher dividend yield at 3.23%, compared with 1.79% for PLA.

What is the main difference between PLA and FBL?

PLA is categorized as Derivative Income, while FBL is Leveraged Equities. Their fees differ too: 1.07% for PLA and 1.15% for FBL.