ASIA vs. FNGS

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

ASIA (Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF) and FNGS (MicroSectors FANG+ ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - ASIA is a Asia Pacific Equities fund actively managed by Matthews, while FNGS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the NYSE FANG+ Index. ASIA is actively managed, while FNGS is passively managed. Over the past year, ASIA returned 37.93% vs 15.45% for FNGS. Their 0.56 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. ASIA charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for FNGS.

Performance

ASIA vs. FNGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF (ASIA) and MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ASIA achieves a 18.48% return, which is significantly higher than FNGS's 9.02% return.

ASIA

• 1D: 1.18%
• 1M: -4.71%
• 6M: 10.82%
• YTD: 18.48%
• 1Y: 37.93%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 18.36%

FNGS

• 1D: 1.63%
• 1M: 0.59%
• 6M: 12.42%
• YTD: 9.02%
• 1Y: 15.45%
• 3Y*: 28.64%
• 5Y*: 18.98%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 30.45%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
ASIA Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF	$103.81K	$180.34K	$200.88K
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	$1.57M	$1.92M	$2.40M

ASIA vs. FNGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ASIA Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF	18.48%	32.06%	3.41%	0.01%
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	9.02%	18.64%	51.99%	18.53%

Correlation

The correlation between ASIA and FNGS is 0.61, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.61
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 22, 2023	0.56

The correlation between ASIA and FNGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.56 to 0.61 - a consistent structural relationship.

ASIA vs. FNGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ASIA	FNGS
Technology	62.1%	59.6%
Financial Services	15.4%	10.0%
Industrials	7.1%	-
Communication Services	4.6%	30.0%
Consumer Cyclical	3.4%	10.4%
Energy	2.4%	-
Healthcare	2.3%	-
Real Estate	1.6%	-
Consumer Defensive	1.1%	-
Basic Materials	1.0%	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

ASIA vs. FNGS — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

ASIA

ASIA Risk / Return Rank: 54
ASIA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
ASIA Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
ASIA Omega Ratio Rank: 58
ASIA Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
ASIA Martin Ratio Rank: 54

FNGS

FNGS Risk / Return Rank: 22
FNGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
FNGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
FNGS Omega Ratio Rank: 23
FNGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
FNGS Martin Ratio Rank: 21

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

ASIA vs. FNGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF (ASIA) and MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS). 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.

	ASIA	FNGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.32	0.52	+0.81
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.77	0.86	+0.92
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.10	+0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.96	0.51	+1.45
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.31	1.37	+4.95

ASIA vs. FNGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ASIA Sharpe Ratio is 1.32, which is higher than the FNGS Sharpe Ratio of 0.52. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ASIA and FNGS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

ASIA vs. FNGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ASIA drawdown since its inception was -23.95%, smaller than the maximum FNGS drawdown of -48.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ASIA and FNGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	ASIA	FNGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.95%	-48.98%	+25.03%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.52%	-22.93%	+4.41%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-26.77%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-48.98%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-14.53%	-7.74%	-6.79%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.10%	-10.80%	+5.70%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.74%	8.61%	-2.87%

Volatility

ASIA vs. FNGS - Volatility Comparison

Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF (ASIA) has a higher volatility of 10.24% compared to MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) at 5.87%. This indicates that ASIA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FNGS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ASIA	FNGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.24%	5.87%	+4.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	25.12%	18.36%	+6.76%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.45%	22.86%	+4.59%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.25%	30.29%	-8.04%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.25%	31.07%	-8.82%

ASIA vs. FNGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

ASIA has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than FNGS's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

ASIA vs. FNGS - Dividend Comparison

ASIA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.88%, while FNGS has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
ASIA Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF	0.88%	1.05%	0.58%	0.12%
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ASIA and FNGS in my portfolio?

ASIA and FNGS have a correlation of 0.61, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ASIA or FNGS?

ASIA has higher volatility (10.24%) compared to FNGS (5.87%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ASIA dropped -23.95% vs FNGS's -48.98%.

Which ETF is better, ASIA or FNGS?

On 1-year performance, ASIA leads with 37.93% vs 15.45% for FNGS. On fees, FNGS is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, FNGS has been the lower-risk option at 5.87%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ASIA or FNGS?

Over the 1-year period, ASIA has performed better with a 37.93% return vs 15.45%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ASIA or FNGS?

FNGS is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for ASIA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ASIA or FNGS?

ASIA has the higher dividend yield at 0.88%, compared with 0.00% for FNGS.

What is the main difference between ASIA and FNGS?

ASIA is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while FNGS is Large Cap Growth Equities. They also come from different issuers: Matthews and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for ASIA and 0.58% for FNGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ASIA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.32 vs 0.52), 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.