XXXX vs. CRMG
XXXX (MAX S&P 500 4X Leveraged ETN) and CRMG (Leverage Shares 2X Long CRM Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. XXXX is passively managed, while CRMG is actively managed. Over the past year, XXXX returned 61.35% vs -73.99% for CRMG. At a 0.30 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XXXX charges 2.95%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for CRMG.
Performance
XXXX vs. CRMG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, XXXX achieves a 13.89% return, which is significantly higher than CRMG's -71.26% return.
XXXX
- 1D
- -5.65%
- 1M
- -8.58%
- YTD
- 13.89%
- 6M
- 9.18%
- 1Y
- 61.35%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CRMG
- 1D
- 4.23%
- 1M
- -29.64%
- YTD
- -71.26%
- 6M
- -71.01%
- 1Y
- -73.99%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
XXXX vs. CRMG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
XXXX MAX S&P 500 4X Leveraged ETN | 13.89% | 85.58% |
CRMG Leverage Shares 2X Long CRM Daily ETF | -71.26% | -0.29% |
Correlation
The correlation between XXXX and CRMG is 0.22, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.22 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 4, 2025 | 0.30 |
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
XXXX vs. CRMG — Risk / Return Rank
XXXX
CRMG
XXXX vs. CRMG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MAX S&P 500 4X Leveraged ETN (XXXX) and Leverage Shares 2X Long CRM Daily ETF (CRMG). 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.
| XXXX | CRMG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +2.22 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +3.56 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.23 | 0.79 | +0.44 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.66 | -0.97 | +2.62 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.14 | -1.70 | +7.85 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
XXXX vs. CRMG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XXXX drawdown since its inception was -62.27%, smaller than the maximum CRMG drawdown of -79.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XXXX and CRMG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XXXX | CRMG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -62.27% | -79.83% | +17.56% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -37.25% | -76.80% | +39.55% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -14.46% | -78.97% | +64.51% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.55% | -39.18% | +27.63% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 10.02% | 43.41% | -33.39% |
Volatility
XXXX vs. CRMG - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for MAX S&P 500 4X Leveraged ETN (XXXX) is 19.57%, while Leverage Shares 2X Long CRM Daily ETF (CRMG) has a volatility of 32.53%. This indicates that XXXX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CRMG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XXXX | CRMG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 19.57% | 32.53% | -12.96% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 39.25% | 63.74% | -24.49% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 49.48% | 76.12% | -26.64% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 61.18% | 75.39% | -14.21% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 61.18% | 75.39% | -14.21% |
XXXX vs. CRMG - Expense Ratio Comparison
XXXX has a 2.95% expense ratio, which is higher than CRMG's 0.75% expense ratio.
Dividends
XXXX vs. CRMG - Dividend Comparison
Neither XXXX nor CRMG has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
XXXX and CRMG have a correlation of 0.22, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CRMG has higher volatility (32.53%) compared to XXXX (19.57%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XXXX dropped -62.27% vs CRMG's -79.83%.
On 1-year performance, XXXX leads with 61.35% vs -73.99% for CRMG. On fees, CRMG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, XXXX has been the lower-risk option at 19.57%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, XXXX has performed better with a 61.35% return vs -73.99%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
CRMG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 2.95% for XXXX.
XXXX and CRMG have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
They also come from different issuers: Max and Leverage Shares. Their fees differ too: 2.95% for XXXX and 0.75% for CRMG.
XXXX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.25 vs -0.97), 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.
Find the right allocation for XXXX and CRMG
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