NVDL vs TSLL: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
NVDL and TSLL are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. NVDL is GraniteShares 2x Long NVDA Daily ETF, while TSLL is Direxion Daily TSLA Bull 2X ETF. TSLL is broader by holdings count, with 12 positions versus 2 for NVDL. TSLL has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has TSLL ahead on AIQ Score, 44 versus 40.
What is the main difference between NVDL and TSLL?
TSLL holds 12 positions to NVDL's 2.
| Metric | NVDL | TSLL |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 1.06% | 0.95% |
| Holdings | 2 | 12 |
| Average volume | 12,939,520 | 75,270,375 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +11.4% | -48.8% |
| YTD return | +11.3% | -48.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 75% | 90% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -42.2% | -70.7% |
| Beta | 3.84 | 4.42 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.44 | -0.38 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.77 | -0.56 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 40/100 | 44/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 3/10 |
| Momentum | 34/100 | 63/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 2/100 | 0/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
GraniteShares 2x Long NVDA Daily ETF vs Direxion Daily TSLA Bull 2X ETF
TSLL leads
TSLL leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from NVDL.
Fragile: 1 of 3 evidence groups support TSLL, and the lead recently changed hands.
GraniteShares 2x Long NVDA Daily ETF
Direxion Daily TSLA Bull 2X ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TSLL over NVDL, 44 versus 40 as of Oct 21, 2026. TSLL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. TSLL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor TSLL today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. TSLL lead: Reversed — NVDL led by 15 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TSLL now leads by 4.
Compare GraniteShares 2x Long NVDA Daily ETF and Direxion Daily TSLA Bull 2X ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
NVDL vs TSLL: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | NVDL | TSLL | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 1.06% | 0.95% | TSLL |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 2 | 12 | TSLL |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -42.2% | -70.7% | NVDL |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 75% | 90% | NVDL |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare NVDL and TSLL against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Momentum34 vs 63TSLL +29
- Quality64 vs 70TSLL +6
- Risk Resilience2 vs 0Even
1 of 3 evidence groups favor TSLL. TSLL’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
TSLL's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — NVDL and TSLL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TSLL (Direxion Daily TSLA Bull 2X ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
NVDL (GraniteShares 2x Long NVDA Daily ETF): the counter-case, on technicals.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | NVDL | TSLL | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 1.06% | 0.95% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 2 | 12 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 12,939,520 | 75,270,375 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 75% | 90% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -42.2% | -70.7% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.44 | -0.38 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 3.84 | 4.42 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
NVDL vs TSLL: five-year payout growth
NVDL began paying distributions in 2023, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. TSLL began paying distributions in 2022, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | NVDL | TSLL |
|---|---|---|
| Peer rank | not ranked | not ranked |
Split-adjusted annual distributions, 2020–2025. Research as of Sep 19, 2026. Yield and expense ratio above are current values, not part of this window.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor TSLL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | TSLL | 40 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | NVDL | Price vs 50-day -2.8% vs 11%; vs 200-day 3.2% vs -21.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 2 vs 0 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of NVDL and TSLL and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on TSLL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20TSLL lead: Reversed — NVDL led by 15 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TSLL now leads by 4.
- Today
- TSLL +4
- 40 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- NVDL +4
- 41 vs 37
- 30 sessions ago
- NVDL +15
- 51 vs 36
- 90 sessions ago
- NVDL +13
- 56 vs 43
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Oct 19 when TSLL moved ahead of NVDL.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only NVDL
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.60%)
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 3 neutral
Only TSLL
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (33.03%)
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, MACD Bearish Crossover.
NVDL is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +5.02%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +6.69%, AIQ +1 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1NVDL closes the Momentum gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSLL's edge.
- 2NVDL's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3TSLL starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
NVDL leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | NVDL | TSLL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -10.7% | -1.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -11.6% | -4.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.3% | -10% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.6% | -23.4% |
| Year to date | 11.3% | -48.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 11.4% | -48.8% |
Technicals
NVDL has the stronger structure| Metric | NVDL | TSLL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 35.6 | 59.4 |
| ADX (14) | 17.8 | 11.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.8% | 11% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.2% | -21.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 46.6% | 65.3% |
Risk
Split| Metric | NVDL | TSLL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.84 | 4.42 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.44 | -0.38 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.77 | -0.56 |
| Max drawdown | -42.2% | -70.7% |
| Current drawdown | -24.1% | -57.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 75% | 90% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.3% | -8.3% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between NVDL and TSLL?
TSLL holds 12 positions to NVDL's 2.
Which ETF is more diversified, NVDL or TSLL?
TSLL holds more positions: 12 versus 2 for NVDL.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
TSLL has the lower expense ratio, 0.95% a year against 1.06% for NVDL.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
TSLL has been more volatile over the past year, at 90% annualized against 75% for NVDL.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
NVDL fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -42.2% against -70.7% for TSLL.
Compare NVDL and TSLL with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.