FAS vs. FNGS

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

FAS (Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X Shares) and FNGS (MicroSectors FANG+ ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - FAS is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Financial Services Index (300%), while FNGS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the NYSE FANG+ Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FAS returned 7.30%/yr vs 19.76%/yr for FNGS. At a 0.43 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FAS charges 1.00%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for FNGS.

Performance

FAS vs. FNGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X Shares (FAS) 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, FAS achieves a -13.50% return, which is significantly lower than FNGS's 6.79% return.

FAS

• 1D: 4.15%
• 1M: 12.28%
• YTD: -13.50%
• 6M: -13.89%
• 1Y: 7.93%
• 3Y*: 38.21%
• 5Y*: 7.30%
• 10Y*: 21.20%

FNGS

• 1D: -0.94%
• 1M: -1.94%
• YTD: 6.79%
• 6M: 4.25%
• 1Y: 19.09%
• 3Y*: 29.80%
• 5Y*: 19.76%
• 10Y*: —

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

FAS vs. FNGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FAS Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X Shares	-13.50%	21.48%	84.47%	14.92%	-43.19%	116.59%	-34.97%	11.55%
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	6.79%	18.64%	51.99%	95.24%	-40.32%	16.96%	101.99%	10.10%

Correlation

The correlation between FAS and FNGS is 0.25, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.25
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.32
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.45
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 13, 2019	0.43

The correlation between FAS and FNGS shifts across timeframes, from 0.25 (1 year) to 0.45 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FAS vs. FNGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FAS	FNGS
Financial Services	98.0%	10.0%
Technology	1.8%	63.4%
Industrials	0.2%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	26.0%
Consumer Cyclical	-	10.6%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

FAS vs. FNGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

FAS

FAS Risk / Return Rank: 11
FAS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 10
FAS Sortino Ratio Rank: 11
FAS Omega Ratio Rank: 12
FAS Calmar Ratio Rank: 10
FAS Martin Ratio Rank: 10

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.

FAS vs. FNGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X Shares (FAS) 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.

	FAS	FNGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.03	0.79	-0.76
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.34	1.19	-0.85
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.04	1.15	-0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.03	0.75	-0.71
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.08	2.12	-2.04

FAS vs. FNGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FAS Sharpe Ratio is 0.03, which is lower than the FNGS Sharpe Ratio of 0.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FAS 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

FAS vs. FNGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FAS drawdown since its inception was -91.61%, which is greater than FNGS's maximum drawdown of -48.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FAS and FNGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	FAS	FNGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-91.61%	-48.98%	-42.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-40.88%	-22.93%	-17.95%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-43.10%	-26.77%	-16.33%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-66.88%	-48.98%	-17.90%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-85.99%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-20.63%	-9.63%	-11.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-31.12%	-10.85%	-20.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	17.97%	8.05%	+9.92%

Volatility

FAS vs. FNGS - Volatility Comparison

Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X Shares (FAS) has a higher volatility of 12.45% compared to MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) at 8.74%. This indicates that FAS'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

	FAS	FNGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.45%	8.74%	+3.71%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	33.46%	17.19%	+16.27%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	43.61%	21.65%	+21.96%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	55.59%	30.10%	+25.49%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	61.33%	31.17%	+30.16%

FAS vs. FNGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

FAS has a 1.00% expense ratio, which is higher than FNGS's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

FAS vs. FNGS - Dividend Comparison

FAS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 9.64%, while FNGS has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FAS Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X Shares	9.64%	8.21%	0.76%	1.77%	0.91%	0.60%	0.47%	0.62%	1.43%	0.11%
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	0.00%	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 FAS and FNGS in my portfolio?

FAS and FNGS have a correlation of 0.25, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FAS or FNGS?

FAS has higher volatility (12.45%) compared to FNGS (8.74%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FAS dropped -91.61% vs FNGS's -48.98%.

Which ETF is better, FAS or FNGS?

On 5-year performance, FNGS leads with 19.76% vs 7.30% for FAS. 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, FAS or FNGS?

Over the 5-year period, FNGS has performed better with a 19.76% return vs 7.30%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FAS or FNGS?

FNGS is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 1.00% for FAS.

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

FAS has the higher dividend yield at 9.64%, compared with 0.00% for FNGS.

What is the main difference between FAS and FNGS?

FAS is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while FNGS is Large Cap Growth Equities. FAS tracks Russell 1000 Financial Services Index (300%), while FNGS tracks NYSE FANG+ Index. They also come from different issuers: Direxion and BMO. Their fees differ too: 1.00% for FAS and 0.58% for FNGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FNGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.79 vs 0.03), 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.