CANE vs. FNGU

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

CANE (Teucrium Sugar Fund) and FNGU (MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs) are both exchange-traded funds - CANE is a Agricultural Commodities fund tracking the Teucrium Sugar Fund Benchmark, while FNGU is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the NYSE FANG+ Index (Gross Total Return) (300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past year, CANE returned -11.17% vs 13.50% for FNGU. Their 0.04 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. CANE charges 1.88%/yr vs 2.60%/yr for FNGU.

Performance

CANE vs. FNGU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Teucrium Sugar Fund (CANE) and MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs (FNGU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CANE achieves a -1.38% return, which is significantly lower than FNGU's 5.54% return.

CANE

• 1D: 0.94%
• 1M: -1.54%
• 6M: 4.11%
• YTD: -1.38%
• 1Y: -11.17%
• 3Y*: -10.64%
• 5Y*: 2.41%
• 10Y*: -2.68%
• ALL TIME*: -6.25%

FNGU

• 1D: 5.13%
• 1M: 0.64%
• 6M: 18.28%
• YTD: 5.54%
• 1Y: 13.50%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 5.98%

*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)
CANE Teucrium Sugar Fund	$1.32M	$1.65M	$3.43M
FNGU MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs	$92.08M	$119.18M	$153.90M

CANE vs. FNGU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CANE Teucrium Sugar Fund	-1.38%	-21.27%
FNGU MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs	5.54%	3.02%

Correlation

The correlation between CANE and FNGU is 0.03, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.03
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 20, 2025	0.04

Return for Risk

CANE vs. FNGU — Risk / Return Rank

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

CANE

CANE Risk / Return Rank: 5
CANE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
CANE Sortino Ratio Rank: 4
CANE Omega Ratio Rank: 4
CANE Calmar Ratio Rank: 4
CANE Martin Ratio Rank: 5

FNGU

FNGU Risk / Return Rank: 14
FNGU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
FNGU Sortino Ratio Rank: 17
FNGU Omega Ratio Rank: 17
FNGU Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
FNGU Martin Ratio Rank: 12

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.

CANE vs. FNGU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Teucrium Sugar Fund (CANE) and MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs (FNGU). 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.

	CANE	FNGU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.59	0.07	-0.65
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.73	0.56	-1.29
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.92	1.07	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.60	0.07	-0.67
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.89	0.16	-1.05

CANE vs. FNGU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CANE Sharpe Ratio is -0.59, which is lower than the FNGU Sharpe Ratio of 0.07. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CANE and FNGU, 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

CANE vs. FNGU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CANE drawdown since its inception was -81.30%, which is greater than FNGU's maximum drawdown of -61.30%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CANE and FNGU.

Drawdown Indicators

	CANE	FNGU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-81.30%	-61.30%	-20.00%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.82%	-59.55%	+39.73%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-41.73%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-41.73%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-67.29%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-63.44%	-26.25%	-37.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-56.56%	-22.61%	-33.95%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	13.33%	26.68%	-13.35%

Volatility

CANE vs. FNGU - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Teucrium Sugar Fund (CANE) is 5.03%, while MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs (FNGU) has a volatility of 17.87%. This indicates that CANE experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FNGU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CANE	FNGU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.03%	17.87%	-12.84%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.18%	53.81%	-37.63%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.20%	65.86%	-45.66%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.92%	79.67%	-58.75%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.58%	79.67%	-58.09%

CANE vs. FNGU - Expense Ratio Comparison

CANE has a 1.88% expense ratio, which is lower than FNGU's 2.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

CANE vs. FNGU - Dividend Comparison

Neither CANE nor FNGU has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CANE and FNGU in my portfolio?

CANE and FNGU have a correlation of 0.03, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CANE or FNGU?

FNGU has higher volatility (17.87%) compared to CANE (5.03%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CANE dropped -81.30% vs FNGU's -61.30%.

Which ETF is better, CANE or FNGU?

On 1-year performance, FNGU leads with 13.50% vs -11.17% for CANE. On fees, CANE is cheaper at 1.88% per year. On volatility, CANE has been the lower-risk option at 5.03%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CANE or FNGU?

Over the 1-year period, FNGU has performed better with a 13.50% return vs -11.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CANE or FNGU?

CANE is cheaper with a 1.88% expense ratio, compared with 2.60% for FNGU.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CANE or FNGU?

CANE and FNGU have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between CANE and FNGU?

CANE is categorized as Agricultural Commodities, while FNGU is Leveraged Equities. CANE tracks Teucrium Sugar Fund Benchmark, while FNGU tracks NYSE FANG+ Index (Gross Total Return) (300%). They also come from different issuers: Teucrium and BMO. Their fees differ too: 1.88% for CANE and 2.60% for FNGU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FNGU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.07 vs -0.59), 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.