FNGO vs. BNKU

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FNGO (MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN) and BNKU (MicroSectors U.S. Big Banks Index 3X Leveraged ETNs) are both Leveraged Equities funds from Bank of Montreal - FNGO tracks the NYSE FANG+ Index (+200%) while BNKU tracks the Solactive MicroSectors U.S. Big Banks Index (-300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past year, FNGO returned 54.81% vs 85.57% for BNKU. At a 0.49 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

FNGO vs. BNKU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN (FNGO) and MicroSectors U.S. Big Banks Index 3X Leveraged ETNs (BNKU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FNGO achieves a 29.63% return, which is significantly higher than BNKU's -1.60% return.

FNGO

• 1D: -2.35%
• 1M: 23.13%
• YTD: 29.63%
• 6M: 17.47%
• 1Y: 54.81%
• 3Y*: 62.64%
• 5Y*: 30.44%
• 10Y*: —

BNKU

• 1D: -3.18%
• 1M: 6.20%
• YTD: -1.60%
• 6M: 10.64%
• 1Y: 85.57%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FNGO vs. BNKU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
FNGO MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN	29.63%	16.65%
BNKU MicroSectors U.S. Big Banks Index 3X Leveraged ETNs	-1.60%	46.04%

Correlation

The correlation between FNGO and BNKU is 0.38, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.38
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 21, 2025	0.49

The correlation between FNGO and BNKU shifts across timeframes, from 0.38 (1 year) to 0.49 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FNGO vs. BNKU - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FNGO	BNKU
Technology	59.9%	-
Communication Services	28.8%	-
Consumer Cyclical	11.3%	-
Financial Services	10.0%	100.0%
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

FNGO vs. BNKU — Risk / Return Rank

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

FNGO

FNGO Risk / Return Rank: 32
FNGO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
FNGO Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
FNGO Omega Ratio Rank: 35
FNGO Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
FNGO Martin Ratio Rank: 25

BNKU

BNKU Risk / Return Rank: 39
BNKU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
BNKU Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
BNKU Omega Ratio Rank: 39
BNKU Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
BNKU Martin Ratio Rank: 36

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.

FNGO vs. BNKU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN (FNGO) and MicroSectors U.S. Big Banks Index 3X Leveraged ETNs (BNKU). 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.

	FNGO	BNKU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.39	1.52	-0.12
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.94	1.96	-0.02
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.26	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.29	2.10	-0.81
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.39	5.55	-2.16
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FNGO vs. BNKU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNGO Sharpe Ratio is 1.39, which is comparable to the BNKU Sharpe Ratio of 1.52. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNGO and BNKU, 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

	FNGO	BNKU	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.39	1.52	-0.12
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.51	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.67	0.45	+0.22

Drawdowns

FNGO vs. BNKU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNGO drawdown since its inception was -78.39%, which is greater than BNKU's maximum drawdown of -58.03%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNGO and BNKU.

Drawdown Indicators

	FNGO	BNKU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-78.39%	-58.03%	-20.36%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-42.73%	-40.97%	-1.76%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-47.64%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-78.39%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.94%	-16.59%	+13.65%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-23.91%	-16.56%	-7.35%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	16.21%	15.48%	+0.73%

Volatility

FNGO vs. BNKU - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN (FNGO) is 11.29%, while MicroSectors U.S. Big Banks Index 3X Leveraged ETNs (BNKU) has a volatility of 13.86%. This indicates that FNGO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BNKU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FNGO	BNKU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.29%	13.86%	-2.57%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	30.58%	45.02%	-14.44%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	39.56%	56.70%	-17.14%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	60.24%	72.86%	-12.62%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	61.54%	72.86%	-11.32%

FNGO vs. BNKU - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both FNGO and BNKU have an expense ratio of 0.95%.

Dividends

FNGO vs. BNKU - Dividend Comparison

Neither FNGO nor BNKU has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FNGO and BNKU in my portfolio?

FNGO and BNKU have a correlation of 0.38, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FNGO or BNKU?

BNKU has higher volatility (13.86%) compared to FNGO (11.29%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FNGO dropped -78.39% vs BNKU's -58.03%.

Which ETF is better, FNGO or BNKU?

On 1-year performance, BNKU leads with 85.57% vs 54.81% for FNGO. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, FNGO has been the lower-risk option at 11.29%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FNGO or BNKU?

Over the 1-year period, BNKU has performed better with a 85.57% return vs 54.81%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FNGO or BNKU?

FNGO and BNKU have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FNGO or BNKU?

FNGO and BNKU have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between FNGO and BNKU?

FNGO tracks NYSE FANG+ Index (+200%), while BNKU tracks Solactive MicroSectors U.S. Big Banks Index (-300%).

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BNKU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.52 vs 1.39), 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.