BLOK vs. FNGS

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

BLOK (Amplify Blockchain Technology ETF) and FNGS (MicroSectors FANG+ ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - BLOK is a Blockchain fund actively managed by Amplify, while FNGS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the NYSE FANG+ Index. BLOK is actively managed, while FNGS is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, BLOK returned 11.50%/yr vs 19.76%/yr for FNGS. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BLOK charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for FNGS.

Performance

BLOK vs. FNGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Amplify Blockchain Technology ETF (BLOK) 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, BLOK achieves a 12.57% return, which is significantly higher than FNGS's 6.79% return.

BLOK

• 1D: 1.33%
• 1M: -0.28%
• YTD: 12.57%
• 6M: 5.60%
• 1Y: 24.42%
• 3Y*: 50.68%
• 5Y*: 11.50%
• 10Y*: —

FNGS

• 1D: -0.94%
• 1M: -3.20%
• YTD: 6.79%
• 6M: 4.25%
• 1Y: 17.02%
• 3Y*: 29.80%
• 5Y*: 19.76%
• 10Y*: —

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

BLOK vs. FNGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
BLOK Amplify Blockchain Technology ETF	12.57%	32.64%	53.12%	99.62%	-62.36%	30.76%	90.17%	4.16%
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	6.79%	18.64%	51.99%	95.24%	-40.32%	16.96%	101.99%	10.10%

Correlation

The correlation between BLOK and FNGS is 0.60, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.60
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.58
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.67
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 13, 2019	0.66

The correlation between BLOK and FNGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.58 to 0.67 - a consistent structural relationship.

BLOK vs. FNGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BLOK	FNGS
Financial Services	55.3%	10.0%
Technology	31.8%	59.9%
Consumer Cyclical	6.7%	11.3%
Communication Services	5.2%	28.8%
Industrials	1.0%	-
Real Estate	0.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

BLOK vs. FNGS — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

BLOK

BLOK Risk / Return Rank: 20
BLOK Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
BLOK Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
BLOK Omega Ratio Rank: 22
BLOK Calmar Ratio Rank: 19
BLOK Martin Ratio Rank: 17

FNGS

FNGS Risk / Return Rank: 23
FNGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
FNGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
FNGS Omega Ratio Rank: 24
FNGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
FNGS Martin Ratio Rank: 20

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

BLOK vs. FNGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amplify Blockchain Technology ETF (BLOK) 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.

	BLOK	FNGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.63	0.79	-0.16
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.08	1.19	-0.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	1.15	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.69	0.75	-0.06
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.49	2.12	-0.63

BLOK vs. FNGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BLOK Sharpe Ratio is 0.63, which is comparable to the FNGS Sharpe Ratio of 0.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BLOK 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

BLOK vs. FNGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BLOK drawdown since its inception was -73.33%, which is greater than FNGS's maximum drawdown of -48.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BLOK and FNGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	BLOK	FNGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-73.33%	-48.98%	-24.35%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-35.64%	-22.93%	-12.71%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-35.64%	-26.77%	-8.87%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-73.33%	-48.98%	-24.35%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-12.97%	-9.63%	-3.34%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-26.03%	-10.85%	-15.18%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	16.41%	8.05%	+8.36%

Volatility

BLOK vs. FNGS - Volatility Comparison

Amplify Blockchain Technology ETF (BLOK) has a higher volatility of 13.34% compared to MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) at 8.74%. This indicates that BLOK'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

	BLOK	FNGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.34%	8.74%	+4.60%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	30.02%	17.19%	+12.83%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	39.18%	21.65%	+17.53%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	42.53%	30.10%	+12.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	39.05%	31.17%	+7.88%

BLOK vs. FNGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

BLOK has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is higher than FNGS's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

BLOK vs. FNGS - Dividend Comparison

BLOK's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.64%, while FNGS has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
BLOK Amplify Blockchain Technology ETF	0.64%	0.72%	6.00%	1.15%	0.00%	14.31%	1.88%	2.05%	1.30%
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BLOK and FNGS in my portfolio?

BLOK and FNGS have a correlation of 0.60, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BLOK or FNGS?

BLOK has higher volatility (13.34%) compared to FNGS (8.74%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BLOK dropped -73.33% vs FNGS's -48.98%.

Which ETF is better, BLOK or FNGS?

On 5-year performance, FNGS leads with 19.76% vs 11.50% for BLOK. On fees, FNGS is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, FNGS has been the lower-risk option at 8.74%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BLOK or FNGS?

Over the 5-year period, FNGS has performed better with a 19.76% return vs 11.50%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BLOK or FNGS?

FNGS is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for BLOK.

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

BLOK has the higher dividend yield at 0.64%, compared with 0.00% for FNGS.

What is the main difference between BLOK and FNGS?

BLOK is categorized as Blockchain, while FNGS is Large Cap Growth Equities. They also come from different issuers: Amplify and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for BLOK and 0.58% for FNGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FNGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.79 vs 0.63), 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.