CRMG vs. NRGU

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

CRMG (Leverage Shares 2X Long CRM Daily ETF) and NRGU (MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN) are both Leveraged Equities funds. CRMG is actively managed, while NRGU is passively managed. Over the past year, CRMG returned -62.88% vs 156.47% for NRGU. At a 0.11 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CRMG charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for NRGU.

Performance

CRMG vs. NRGU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Leverage Shares 2X Long CRM Daily ETF (CRMG) and MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN (NRGU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CRMG achieves a -57.62% return, which is significantly lower than NRGU's 111.49% return.

CRMG

• 1D: -3.49%
• 1M: 0.69%
• YTD: -57.62%
• 6M: -56.45%
• 1Y: -62.88%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

NRGU

• 1D: -6.40%
• 1M: 4.99%
• YTD: 111.49%
• 6M: 82.61%
• 1Y: 156.47%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CRMG vs. NRGU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CRMG Leverage Shares 2X Long CRM Daily ETF	-57.62%	3.69%
NRGU MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN	111.49%	36.44%

Correlation

The correlation between CRMG and NRGU is 0.07, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.07
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 7, 2025	0.11

Return for Risk

CRMG vs. NRGU — Risk / Return Rank

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

CRMG

CRMG Risk / Return Rank: 2
CRMG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3
CRMG Sortino Ratio Rank: 2
CRMG Omega Ratio Rank: 2
CRMG Calmar Ratio Rank: 1
CRMG Martin Ratio Rank: 1

NRGU

NRGU Risk / Return Rank: 61
NRGU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
NRGU Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
NRGU Omega Ratio Rank: 51
NRGU Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
NRGU Martin Ratio Rank: 57

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.

CRMG vs. NRGU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Leverage Shares 2X Long CRM Daily ETF (CRMG) and MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN (NRGU). 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.

	CRMG	NRGU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.84	2.10	-2.94
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.25	2.43	-3.68
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.85	1.30	-0.45
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.89	3.94	-4.83
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.52	9.76	-11.28
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CRMG vs. NRGU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CRMG Sharpe Ratio is -0.84, which is lower than the NRGU Sharpe Ratio of 2.10. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CRMG and NRGU, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CRMG	NRGU	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.84	2.10	-2.94
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.67	0.35	-1.02

Drawdowns

CRMG vs. NRGU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CRMG drawdown since its inception was -74.38%, which is greater than NRGU's maximum drawdown of -57.50%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CRMG and NRGU.

Drawdown Indicators

	CRMG	NRGU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-74.38%	-57.50%	-16.88%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-70.91%	-39.95%	-30.96%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-68.99%	-27.06%	-41.93%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-37.92%	-25.41%	-12.51%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	41.28%	16.10%	+25.18%

Volatility

CRMG vs. NRGU - Volatility Comparison

Leverage Shares 2X Long CRM Daily ETF (CRMG) has a higher volatility of 33.63% compared to MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN (NRGU) at 26.47%. This indicates that CRMG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than NRGU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CRMG	NRGU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	33.63%	26.47%	+7.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	63.83%	61.54%	+2.29%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	75.38%	75.00%	+0.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	75.55%	89.08%	-13.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	75.55%	89.08%	-13.53%

CRMG vs. NRGU - Expense Ratio Comparison

CRMG has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than NRGU's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

CRMG vs. NRGU - Dividend Comparison

Neither CRMG nor NRGU has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CRMG and NRGU in my portfolio?

CRMG and NRGU have a correlation of 0.07, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CRMG or NRGU?

CRMG has higher volatility (33.63%) compared to NRGU (26.47%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CRMG dropped -74.38% vs NRGU's -57.50%.

Which ETF is better, CRMG or NRGU?

On 1-year performance, NRGU leads with 156.47% vs -62.88% for CRMG. On fees, CRMG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, NRGU has been the lower-risk option at 26.47%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CRMG or NRGU?

Over the 1-year period, NRGU has performed better with a 156.47% return vs -62.88%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CRMG or NRGU?

CRMG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for NRGU.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CRMG or NRGU?

CRMG and NRGU have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between CRMG and NRGU?

They also come from different issuers: Leverage Shares and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for CRMG and 0.95% for NRGU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NRGU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.10 vs -0.84), 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.