PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
FBGX vs. INTW
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

FBGX vs. INTW

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FBGX (UBS AG FI Enhanced Large Cap Growth ETN) and INTW (GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. FBGX is passively managed, while INTW is actively managed. FBGX charges 1.29%/yr vs 1.50%/yr for INTW.

Performance

FBGX vs. INTW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in UBS AG FI Enhanced Large Cap Growth ETN (FBGX) and GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

FBGX

1D
—
1M
—
YTD
—
6M
—
1Y
—
3Y*
—
5Y*
—
10Y*
—

INTW

1D
-12.49%
1M
12.21%
YTD
750.22%
6M
775.58%
1Y
1,964.55%
3Y*
—
5Y*
—
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FBGX vs. INTW - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)2025
FBGX
UBS AG FI Enhanced Large Cap Growth ETN		0.00%0.00%
INTW
GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF		750.22%60.89%

FBGX vs. INTW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
FBGX
INTW

Basic Materials

0.0%

-

Communication Services

0.0%

-

Consumer Cyclical

0.0%

-

Consumer Defensive

0.0%

-

Energy

0.0%

-

Financial Services

0.0%

-

Healthcare

0.0%

-

Industrials

0.0%

-

Real Estate

0.0%

-

Technology

0.0%
66.7%

Utilities

0.0%

-

Basic Materials

FBGX
0.0%
INTW

-

Communication Services

FBGX
0.0%
INTW

-

Consumer Cyclical

FBGX
0.0%
INTW

-

Consumer Defensive

FBGX
0.0%
INTW

-

Energy

FBGX
0.0%
INTW

-

Financial Services

FBGX
0.0%
INTW

-

Healthcare

FBGX
0.0%
INTW

-

Industrials

FBGX
0.0%
INTW

-

Real Estate

FBGX
0.0%
INTW

-

Technology

FBGX
0.0%
INTW
66.7%

Utilities

FBGX
0.0%
INTW

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

UBS AG FI Enhanced Large Cap Growth ETN

GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF

Often compared with FBGX:
FBGX vs. FSELXFBGX vs. BPTRXFBGX vs. FBGKXFBGX vs. FXAIXFBGX vs. MSFBGX vs. BSGLXFBGX vs. MSEQX
Often compared with INTW:
INTW vs. LINTINTW vs. LITXINTW vs. SOXLINTW vs. UPROINTW vs. MSFXINTW vs. SPOGINTW vs. ERY

Return for Risk

FBGX vs. INTW — Risk / Return Rank

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

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

INTW
INTW Risk / Return Rank: 9898
Overall Rank
INTW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100100
Sharpe Ratio Rank
INTW Sortino Ratio Rank: 9696
Sortino Ratio Rank
INTW Omega Ratio Rank: 9494
Omega Ratio Rank
INTW Calmar Ratio Rank: 9999
Calmar Ratio Rank
INTW Martin Ratio Rank: 9999
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.

FBGX vs. INTW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for UBS AG FI Enhanced Large Cap Growth ETN (FBGX) and GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW). 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.

FBGXINTWDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

—

13.25

—

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

—

5.13

—

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

—

1.65

—

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

—

40.32

—

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

—

91.49

—

FBGX vs. INTW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

FBGX vs. INTW - Drawdown Comparison

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

FBGXINTWDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

—

-60.58%

—

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

—

-49.34%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

—

-12.49%

—

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

—

-29.66%

—

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

—

21.70%

—

Volatility

FBGX vs. INTW - Volatility Comparison

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

FBGXINTWDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

—

55.81%

—

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

—

119.10%

—

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

—

150.14%

—

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

—

148.88%

—

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

—

148.88%

—

FBGX vs. INTW - Expense Ratio Comparison

FBGX has a 1.29% expense ratio, which is lower than INTW's 1.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

FBGX vs. INTW - Dividend Comparison

Neither FBGX nor INTW has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

On fees, FBGX is cheaper at 1.29% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

FBGX is cheaper with a 1.29% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for INTW.

FBGX and INTW have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

They also come from different issuers: UBS and GraniteShares. Their fees differ too: 1.29% for FBGX and 1.50% for INTW.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FBGX and INTW

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