QCML vs. INTW

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

QCML (GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF) and INTW (GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds from GraniteShares. QCML is passively managed, while INTW is actively managed. Over the past year, QCML returned 120.00% vs 1617.48% for INTW. At a 0.36 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 1.50% expense ratio.

Performance

QCML vs. INTW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF (QCML) and GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QCML achieves a 79.80% return, which is significantly lower than INTW's 562.71% return.

QCML

• 1D: 7.29%
• 1M: 100.00%
• YTD: 79.80%
• 6M: 72.23%
• 1Y: 120.00%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

INTW

• 1D: 8.89%
• 1M: 29.41%
• YTD: 562.71%
• 6M: 361.23%
• 1Y: 1,617.48%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QCML vs. INTW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
QCML GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF	79.80%	-16.71%
INTW GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF	562.71%	50.41%

Correlation

The correlation between QCML and INTW 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 Feb 14, 2025	0.36

QCML vs. INTW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QCML	INTW
Technology	66.7%	66.7%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

QCML vs. INTW — Risk / Return Rank

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

QCML

QCML Risk / Return Rank: 41
QCML Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
QCML Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
QCML Omega Ratio Rank: 50
QCML Calmar Ratio Rank: 42
QCML Martin Ratio Rank: 30

INTW

INTW Risk / Return Rank: 97
INTW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
INTW Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
INTW Omega Ratio Rank: 93
INTW Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
INTW Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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.

QCML vs. INTW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF (QCML) 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.

	QCML	INTW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.30	11.42	-10.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.18	5.09	-2.91
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.64	-0.33
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.06	33.18	-31.12
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.31	77.63	-73.32
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QCML vs. INTW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QCML Sharpe Ratio is 1.30, which is lower than the INTW Sharpe Ratio of 11.42. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QCML and INTW, 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

	QCML	INTW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.30	11.42	-10.13
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.38	3.39	-3.01

Drawdowns

QCML vs. INTW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QCML drawdown since its inception was -59.13%, roughly equal to the maximum INTW drawdown of -60.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QCML and INTW.

Drawdown Indicators

	QCML	INTW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-59.13%	-60.58%	+1.45%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-58.72%	-49.34%	-9.38%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.47%	-26.69%	+24.22%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-29.03%	-30.07%	+1.04%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	27.93%	21.05%	+6.88%

Volatility

QCML vs. INTW - Volatility Comparison

GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF (QCML) has a higher volatility of 57.39% compared to GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW) at 48.71%. This indicates that QCML's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than INTW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QCML	INTW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	57.39%	48.71%	+8.68%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	78.26%	111.40%	-33.14%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	93.04%	143.36%	-50.32%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	95.49%	145.22%	-49.73%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	95.49%	145.22%	-49.73%

QCML vs. INTW - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both QCML and INTW have an expense ratio of 1.50%.

Dividends

QCML vs. INTW - Dividend Comparison

Neither QCML nor INTW has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QCML and INTW in my portfolio?

QCML and INTW 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.

Which is riskier, QCML or INTW?

QCML has higher volatility (57.39%) compared to INTW (48.71%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QCML dropped -59.13% vs INTW's -60.58%.

Which ETF is better, QCML or INTW?

On 1-year performance, INTW leads with 1617.48% vs 120.00% for QCML. Both ETFs have the same 1.50% expense ratio. On volatility, INTW has been the lower-risk option at 48.71%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QCML or INTW?

Over the 1-year period, INTW has performed better with a 1617.48% return vs 120.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QCML or INTW?

QCML and INTW have the same expense ratio: 1.50% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QCML or INTW?

QCML and INTW have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

INTW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.42 vs 1.30), 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.