Forecasting-volatility models typically rely on either daily or high frequency (HF) data and the choice between these two categories is not obvious. In particular, the latter allows to treat volatility as observable but they suffer of many limitations. HF data feature microstructure problem, such as the discreteness of the data, the properties of the trading mechanism and the existence of bid-ask spread. Moreover, these data are not always available and, even if they are, the asset's liquidity may be not sufficient to allow for frequent transactions. This paper considers different variants of these two family forecasting-volatility models, comparing their performance (in terms of Value at Risk, VaR) under the assumptions of jumping prices and leverage effects for volatility. Findings suggest that GARJI model provides more accurate VaR measures for the S&P 500 index than RV models. Furthermore, the assumption of conditional normality is shown to be not sufficient to obtain accurate risk measures even if jump contribution is provided. More sophisticated models might address this issue, improving VaR results.