PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CONL vs. FNGU
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CONL vs. FNGU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares 2x Long COIN Daily ETF (CONL) and MicroSectors FANG+™ Index 3X Leveraged ETN (FNGU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CONL achieves a -62.12% return, which is significantly lower than FNGU's 36.18% return.


CONL

1D
-12.32%
1M
-38.47%
YTD
-62.12%
6M
-75.31%
1Y
-79.34%
3Y*
-14.88%
5Y*
10Y*

FNGU

1D
-3.75%
1M
33.96%
YTD
36.18%
6M
16.22%
1Y
64.67%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CONL vs. FNGU - Yearly Performance Comparison


Correlation

The correlation between CONL and FNGU is 0.48, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.48

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 21, 2025

0.57

The correlation between CONL and FNGU has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.48 to 0.57 - a consistent structural relationship.

CONL vs. FNGU - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
CONL
FNGU

Financial Services

100.0%

-

Basic Materials

-

-

Communication Services

-

29.8%

Consumer Cyclical

-

9.6%

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Industrials

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Technology

-

60.6%

Utilities

-

-

Financial Services

CONL
100.0%
FNGU

-

Basic Materials

CONL

-

FNGU

-

Communication Services

CONL

-

FNGU
29.8%

Consumer Cyclical

CONL

-

FNGU
9.6%

Consumer Defensive

CONL

-

FNGU

-

Energy

CONL

-

FNGU

-

Healthcare

CONL

-

FNGU

-

Industrials

CONL

-

FNGU

-

Real Estate

CONL

-

FNGU

-

Technology

CONL

-

FNGU
60.6%

Utilities

CONL

-

FNGU

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

CONL vs. FNGU — Risk / Return Rank

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

CONL
CONL Risk / Return Rank: 33
Overall Rank
CONL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CONL Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
Sortino Ratio Rank
CONL Omega Ratio Rank: 44
Omega Ratio Rank
CONL Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
Calmar Ratio Rank
CONL Martin Ratio Rank: 33
Martin Ratio Rank

FNGU
FNGU Risk / Return Rank: 2727
Overall Rank
FNGU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3030
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FNGU Sortino Ratio Rank: 3131
Sortino Ratio Rank
FNGU Omega Ratio Rank: 3030
Omega Ratio Rank
FNGU Calmar Ratio Rank: 2323
Calmar Ratio Rank
FNGU Martin Ratio Rank: 2121
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

CONL vs. FNGU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares 2x Long COIN Daily ETF (CONL) and MicroSectors FANG+™ Index 3X Leveraged ETN (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.


CONLFNGUDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

-0.57

1.13

-1.70

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

-0.65

1.69

-2.35

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

0.93

1.21

-0.28

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

-0.86

1.09

-1.96

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

-1.21

2.64

-3.85

CONL vs. FNGU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CONL Sharpe Ratio is -0.57, which is lower than the FNGU Sharpe Ratio of 1.13. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CONL 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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


CONLFNGUDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.57

1.13

-1.70

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

-0.20

0.40

-0.60

Drawdowns

CONL vs. FNGU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CONL drawdown since its inception was -93.95%, which is greater than FNGU's maximum drawdown of -60.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CONL and FNGU.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CONLFNGUDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-93.95%

-60.84%

-33.11%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-92.02%

-59.55%

-32.47%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-93.95%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-93.48%

-4.84%

-88.64%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-55.95%

-22.06%

-33.89%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

65.74%

24.57%

+41.17%

Volatility

CONL vs. FNGU - Volatility Comparison

GraniteShares 2x Long COIN Daily ETF (CONL) has a higher volatility of 38.02% compared to MicroSectors FANG+™ Index 3X Leveraged ETN (FNGU) at 16.40%. This indicates that CONL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FNGU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CONLFNGUDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

38.02%

16.40%

+21.62%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

101.03%

44.77%

+56.26%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

139.40%

57.50%

+81.90%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

149.93%

78.60%

+71.33%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

149.93%

78.60%

+71.33%

CONL vs. FNGU - Expense Ratio Comparison

CONL has a 1.15% expense ratio, which is higher than FNGU's 0.95% expense ratio.


Dividends

CONL vs. FNGU - Dividend Comparison

Neither CONL nor FNGU has paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM20252024
CONL
GraniteShares 2x Long COIN Daily ETF
0.00%0.00%0.31%
FNGU
MicroSectors FANG+™ Index 3X Leveraged ETN
0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


CONL and FNGU have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

CONL has higher volatility (38.02%) compared to FNGU (16.40%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CONL dropped -93.95% vs FNGU's -60.84%.

On 1-year performance, FNGU leads with 64.67% vs -79.34% for CONL. On fees, FNGU is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, FNGU has been the lower-risk option at 16.40%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, FNGU has performed better with a 64.67% return vs -79.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

FNGU is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.15% for CONL.

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

They also come from different issuers: GraniteShares and Bank of Montreal. Their fees differ too: 1.15% for CONL and 0.95% for FNGU.

FNGU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.13 vs -0.57), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CONL and FNGU

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer