TSLR vs. CIFG

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

TSLR (GraniteShares 2x Long TSLA 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. TSLR charges 1.50%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for CIFG.

Performance

TSLR vs. CIFG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares 2x Long TSLA Daily ETF (TSLR) 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, TSLR achieves a -36.63% return, which is significantly lower than CIFG's 96.56% return.

TSLR

• 1D: -11.59%
• 1M: -22.05%
• YTD: -36.63%
• 6M: -45.88%
• 1Y: -11.40%
• 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)

TSLR vs. CIFG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
TSLR GraniteShares 2x Long TSLA Daily ETF	-36.63%	-2.26%
CIFG Leverage Shares 2X Long CIFR Daily ETF	96.56%	-32.52%

Correlation

The correlation between TSLR 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

TSLR vs. CIFG — Risk / Return Rank

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

TSLR

TSLR Risk / Return Rank: 9
TSLR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
TSLR Sortino Ratio Rank: 11
TSLR Omega Ratio Rank: 11
TSLR Calmar Ratio Rank: 7
TSLR Martin Ratio Rank: 7

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.

TSLR vs. CIFG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	TSLR	CIFG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.13	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.43	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.05	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.21	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.42	—	—

Drawdowns

TSLR vs. CIFG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TSLR drawdown since its inception was -82.80%, which is greater than CIFG's maximum drawdown of -71.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TSLR and CIFG.

Drawdown Indicators

	TSLR	CIFG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-82.80%	-71.71%	-11.09%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-54.37%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-67.57%	-10.44%	-57.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-50.42%	-35.54%	-14.88%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	27.47%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	TSLR	CIFG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	29.06%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	57.00%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	89.48%	205.93%	-116.45%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	115.40%	205.93%	-90.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	115.40%	205.93%	-90.53%

TSLR vs. CIFG - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

TSLR vs. CIFG - Dividend Comparison

Neither TSLR nor CIFG has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TSLR and CIFG in my portfolio?

TSLR 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, TSLR 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, TSLR or CIFG?

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

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

TSLR and CIFG have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between TSLR and CIFG?

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