XXXX vs. INTW
XXXX (MAX S&P 500 4X Leveraged ETN) and INTW (GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. XXXX is passively managed, while INTW is actively managed. Over the past year, XXXX returned 61.35% vs 1964.55% for INTW. At a 0.45 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XXXX charges 2.95%/yr vs 1.50%/yr for INTW.
Performance
XXXX vs. INTW - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, XXXX achieves a 13.89% return, which is significantly lower than INTW's 750.22% return.
XXXX
- 1D
- -5.65%
- 1M
- -8.58%
- YTD
- 13.89%
- 6M
- 9.18%
- 1Y
- 61.35%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
INTW
- 1D
- -12.49%
- 1M
- 12.21%
- YTD
- 750.22%
- 6M
- 775.58%
- 1Y
- 1,964.55%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
XXXX vs. INTW - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
XXXX MAX S&P 500 4X Leveraged ETN | 13.89% | 9.24% |
INTW GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF | 750.22% | 60.89% |
Correlation
The correlation between XXXX and INTW is 0.42, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.42 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 13, 2025 | 0.45 |
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. INTW — Risk / Return Rank
XXXX
INTW
XXXX vs. INTW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MAX S&P 500 4X Leveraged ETN (XXXX) 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.
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 | INTW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -12.00 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -3.39 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.23 | 1.65 | -0.42 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.66 | 40.32 | -38.67 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.14 | 91.49 | -85.35 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
XXXX vs. INTW - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XXXX drawdown since its inception was -62.27%, roughly equal to the maximum INTW drawdown of -60.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XXXX and INTW.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XXXX | INTW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -62.27% | -60.58% | -1.69% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -37.25% | -49.34% | +12.09% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -14.46% | -12.49% | -1.97% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.55% | -29.66% | +18.11% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 10.02% | 21.70% | -11.68% |
Volatility
XXXX vs. INTW - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for MAX S&P 500 4X Leveraged ETN (XXXX) is 19.57%, while GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW) has a volatility of 55.81%. This indicates that XXXX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than INTW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XXXX | INTW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 19.57% | 55.81% | -36.24% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 39.25% | 119.10% | -79.85% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 49.48% | 150.14% | -100.66% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 61.18% | 148.88% | -87.70% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 61.18% | 148.88% | -87.70% |
XXXX vs. INTW - Expense Ratio Comparison
XXXX has a 2.95% expense ratio, which is higher than INTW's 1.50% expense ratio.
Dividends
XXXX vs. INTW - Dividend Comparison
Neither XXXX nor INTW has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
XXXX and INTW have a correlation of 0.42, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
INTW has higher volatility (55.81%) compared to XXXX (19.57%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XXXX dropped -62.27% vs INTW's -60.58%.
On 1-year performance, INTW leads with 1964.55% vs 61.35% for XXXX. On fees, INTW is cheaper at 1.50% 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, INTW has performed better with a 1964.55% return vs 61.35%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
INTW is cheaper with a 1.50% expense ratio, compared with 2.95% for XXXX.
XXXX and INTW have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
They also come from different issuers: Max and GraniteShares. Their fees differ too: 2.95% for XXXX and 1.50% for INTW.
INTW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (13.25 vs 1.25), 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 INTW
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