FNGD vs. GLL

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

FNGD (MicroSectors FANG+™ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN) and GLL (ProShares UltraShort Gold) are both exchange-traded funds - FNGD is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the NYSE FANG+ Index (-300%), while GLL is a Leveraged Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Gold (-200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FNGD returned -63.34%/yr vs -29.04%/yr for GLL. At a 0.07 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

FNGD vs. GLL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors FANG+™ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (FNGD) and ProShares UltraShort Gold (GLL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FNGD achieves a -32.18% return, which is significantly lower than GLL's -4.93% return.

FNGD

• 1D: 7.85%
• 1M: -4.69%
• YTD: -32.18%
• 6M: -30.47%
• 1Y: -54.47%
• 3Y*: -66.30%
• 5Y*: -63.34%
• 10Y*: —

GLL

• 1D: 1.30%
• 1M: 14.51%
• YTD: -4.93%
• 6M: 0.89%
• 1Y: -42.21%
• 3Y*: -40.08%
• 5Y*: -29.04%
• 10Y*: -21.56%

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

FNGD vs. GLL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
FNGD MicroSectors FANG+™ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN	-32.18%	-61.42%	-76.57%	-90.14%	52.21%	-60.04%	-95.60%	-72.46%	-16.61%
GLL ProShares UltraShort Gold	-4.93%	-62.81%	-33.33%	-14.91%	-2.12%	1.66%	-41.47%	-26.95%	10.48%

Correlation

The correlation between FNGD and GLL is 0.19, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.19
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.11
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.09
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 23, 2018	0.07

The correlation between FNGD and GLL shifts across timeframes, from 0.07 (all time) to 0.19 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

FNGD vs. GLL — Risk / Return Rank

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

FNGD

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

GLL

GLL Risk / Return Rank: 3
GLL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3
GLL Sortino Ratio Rank: 3
GLL Omega Ratio Rank: 3
GLL Calmar Ratio Rank: 3
GLL Martin Ratio Rank: 4

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.

FNGD vs. GLL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG+™ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (FNGD) and ProShares UltraShort Gold (GLL). 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.

	FNGD	GLL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.84	-0.78	-0.06
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.22	-1.13	-0.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.86	0.87	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.83	-0.65	-0.18
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.60	-0.98	-0.62

FNGD vs. GLL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNGD Sharpe Ratio is -0.84, which is comparable to the GLL Sharpe Ratio of -0.78. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNGD and GLL, 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

FNGD vs. GLL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNGD drawdown since its inception was -100.00%, roughly equal to the maximum GLL drawdown of -99.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNGD and GLL.

Drawdown Indicators

	FNGD	GLL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-100.00%	-99.24%	-0.76%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-65.92%	-65.10%	-0.82%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-97.35%	-87.95%	-9.40%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-99.67%	-89.76%	-9.91%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-95.76%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-100.00%	-98.82%	-1.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-87.29%	-85.15%	-2.14%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	35.32%	43.00%	-7.68%

Volatility

FNGD vs. GLL - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors FANG+™ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (FNGD) has a higher volatility of 32.28% compared to ProShares UltraShort Gold (GLL) at 15.88%. This indicates that FNGD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GLL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FNGD	GLL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	32.28%	15.88%	+16.40%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	52.78%	46.76%	+6.02%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	65.18%	54.33%	+10.85%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	89.62%	36.36%	+53.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	91.28%	32.42%	+58.86%

FNGD vs. GLL - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both FNGD and GLL have an expense ratio of 0.95%.

Dividends

FNGD vs. GLL - Dividend Comparison

Neither FNGD nor GLL has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FNGD and GLL in my portfolio?

FNGD and GLL have a correlation of 0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FNGD or GLL?

FNGD has higher volatility (32.28%) compared to GLL (15.88%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FNGD dropped -100.00% vs GLL's -99.24%.

Which ETF is better, FNGD or GLL?

On 5-year performance, GLL leads with -29.04% vs -63.34% for FNGD. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, GLL has been the lower-risk option at 15.88%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FNGD or GLL?

Over the 5-year period, GLL has performed better with a -29.04% return vs -63.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FNGD or GLL?

FNGD and GLL have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FNGD or GLL?

FNGD and GLL have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between FNGD and GLL?

FNGD is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while GLL is Leveraged Commodities. FNGD tracks NYSE FANG+ Index (-300%), while GLL tracks Bloomberg Gold (-200%). They also come from different issuers: BMO and ProShares.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GLL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.78 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.