QCML vs. MSFL

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

QCML (GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF) and MSFL (GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds from GraniteShares. QCML is passively managed, while MSFL is actively managed. Over the past year, QCML returned -27.37% vs -33.16% for MSFL. Their 0.19 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. QCML charges 1.50%/yr vs 1.15%/yr for MSFL.

Performance

QCML vs. MSFL - 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 MSFT Daily ETF (MSFL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QCML achieves a -42.41% return, which is significantly lower than MSFL's -18.68% return.

QCML

• 1D: -5.62%
• 1M: -31.62%
• 6M: -25.47%
• YTD: -42.41%
• 1Y: -27.37%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -39.56%

MSFL

• 1D: 5.79%
• 1M: 37.76%
• 6M: 5.09%
• YTD: -18.68%
• 1Y: -33.16%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -5.56%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
MSFL GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF	$37.77M	$32.36M	$34.28M
QCML GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF	$8.37M	$13.54M	$57.95M

QCML vs. MSFL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
QCML GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF	-42.41%	-16.71%
MSFL GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF	-18.68%	26.40%

Correlation

The correlation between QCML and MSFL is 0.09, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.09
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 13, 2025	0.19

The correlation between QCML and MSFL shifts across timeframes, from 0.09 (1 year) to 0.19 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

QCML vs. MSFL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QCML	MSFL
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. MSFL — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

QCML

QCML Risk / Return Rank: 9
QCML Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7
QCML Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
QCML Omega Ratio Rank: 14
QCML Calmar Ratio Rank: 6
QCML Martin Ratio Rank: 6

MSFL

MSFL Risk / Return Rank: 5
MSFL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5
MSFL Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
MSFL Omega Ratio Rank: 5
MSFL Calmar Ratio Rank: 5
MSFL Martin Ratio Rank: 5

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

QCML vs. MSFL - 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 MSFT Daily ETF (MSFL). 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.

	QCML	MSFL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.27	-0.57	+0.30
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.30	-0.59	+0.89
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.04	0.93	+0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.41	-0.57	+0.17
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.83	-0.95	+0.12

QCML vs. MSFL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QCML Sharpe Ratio is -0.27, which is higher than the MSFL Sharpe Ratio of -0.57. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QCML and MSFL, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

QCML vs. MSFL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QCML drawdown since its inception was -68.76%, which is greater than MSFL's maximum drawdown of -62.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QCML and MSFL.

Drawdown Indicators

	QCML	MSFL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-68.76%	-62.08%	-6.68%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-68.76%	-62.08%	-6.68%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-68.76%	-36.63%	-32.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-30.79%	-23.68%	-7.11%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	33.51%	37.31%	-3.80%

Volatility

QCML vs. MSFL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for GraniteShares 2x Long QCOM Daily ETF (QCML) is 24.96%, while GraniteShares 2x Long MSFT Daily ETF (MSFL) has a volatility of 29.71%. This indicates that QCML experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MSFL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QCML	MSFL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	24.96%	29.71%	-4.75%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	92.90%	51.38%	+41.52%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	105.25%	63.24%	+42.01%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	99.78%	54.34%	+45.44%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	99.78%	54.34%	+45.44%

QCML vs. MSFL - Expense Ratio Comparison

QCML has a 1.50% expense ratio, which is higher than MSFL's 1.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

QCML vs. MSFL - Dividend Comparison

Neither QCML nor MSFL has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QCML and MSFL in my portfolio?

QCML and MSFL have a correlation of 0.09, 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 MSFL?

MSFL has higher volatility (29.71%) compared to QCML (24.96%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QCML dropped -68.76% vs MSFL's -62.08%.

Which ETF is better, QCML or MSFL?

On 1-year performance, QCML leads with -27.37% vs -33.16% for MSFL. On fees, MSFL is cheaper at 1.15% per year. On volatility, QCML has been the lower-risk option at 24.96%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QCML or MSFL?

Over the 1-year period, QCML has performed better with a -27.37% return vs -33.16%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QCML or MSFL?

MSFL is cheaper with a 1.15% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for QCML.

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

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

What is the main difference between QCML and MSFL?

Their fees differ too: 1.50% for QCML and 1.15% for MSFL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QCML currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.27 vs -0.57), 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.