FNGO vs. NRGU

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

FNGO (MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN) and NRGU (MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN) are both Leveraged Equities funds from BMO - FNGO tracks the NYSE FANG+ Index (+200%) while NRGU tracks the Solactive MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, FNGO returned 21.80% vs 166.43% for NRGU. Their -0.04 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

FNGO vs. NRGU - 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 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, FNGO achieves a 12.30% return, which is significantly lower than NRGU's 157.14% return.

FNGO

• 1D: 3.64%
• 1M: 1.33%
• 6M: 20.30%
• YTD: 12.30%
• 1Y: 21.80%
• 3Y*: 47.42%
• 5Y*: 23.80%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 37.68%

NRGU

• 1D: 2.86%
• 1M: 51.26%
• 6M: 91.25%
• YTD: 157.14%
• 1Y: 166.43%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 50.40%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
FNGO MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN	$408.43K	$444.96K	$770.86K
NRGU MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN	$4.57M	$4.13M	$3.95M

FNGO vs. NRGU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
FNGO MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN	12.30%	14.62%
NRGU MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN	157.14%	-30.00%

Correlation

The correlation between FNGO and NRGU is -0.18, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	-0.18
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 20, 2025	-0.04

The correlation between FNGO and NRGU shifts across timeframes, from -0.18 (1 year) to -0.04 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FNGO vs. NRGU - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FNGO	NRGU
Technology	59.6%	-
Communication Services	30.0%	-
Consumer Cyclical	10.4%	-
Financial Services	10.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	100.0%
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

FNGO vs. NRGU — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

FNGO

FNGO Risk / Return Rank: 19
FNGO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 19
FNGO Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
FNGO Omega Ratio Rank: 21
FNGO Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
FNGO Martin Ratio Rank: 17

NRGU

NRGU Risk / Return Rank: 75
NRGU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
NRGU Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
NRGU Omega Ratio Rank: 69
NRGU Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
NRGU Martin Ratio Rank: 63

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

FNGO vs. NRGU - 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 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.

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.

	FNGO	NRGU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.36	1.92	-1.56
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.80	2.31	-1.51
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.09	1.29	-0.19
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.38	3.38	-3.00
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.92	7.59	-6.67

FNGO vs. NRGU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNGO Sharpe Ratio is 0.36, which is lower than the NRGU Sharpe Ratio of 1.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNGO 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.

Drawdowns

FNGO vs. NRGU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNGO drawdown since its inception was -78.39%, which is greater than NRGU's maximum drawdown of -57.50%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNGO and NRGU.

Drawdown Indicators

	FNGO	NRGU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-78.39%	-57.50%	-20.89%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-42.73%	-43.89%	+1.16%
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	-15.91%	-11.31%	-4.60%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-23.75%	-25.74%	+1.99%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	17.55%	19.55%	-2.00%

Volatility

FNGO vs. NRGU - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN (FNGO) is 12.24%, while MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN (NRGU) has a volatility of 22.83%. This indicates that FNGO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NRGU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FNGO	NRGU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.24%	22.83%	-10.59%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	36.19%	64.33%	-28.14%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	44.77%	77.39%	-32.62%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	60.86%	88.47%	-27.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	61.47%	88.47%	-27.00%

FNGO vs. NRGU - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

FNGO vs. NRGU - Dividend Comparison

Neither FNGO nor NRGU has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FNGO and NRGU in my portfolio?

FNGO and NRGU have a correlation of -0.18, 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 NRGU?

NRGU has higher volatility (22.83%) compared to FNGO (12.24%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FNGO dropped -78.39% vs NRGU's -57.50%.

Which ETF is better, FNGO or NRGU?

On 1-year performance, NRGU leads with 166.43% vs 21.80% for FNGO. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, FNGO has been the lower-risk option at 12.24%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FNGO or NRGU?

Over the 1-year period, NRGU has performed better with a 166.43% return vs 21.80%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FNGO or NRGU?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between FNGO and NRGU?

FNGO tracks NYSE FANG+ Index (+200%), while NRGU tracks Solactive MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NRGU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.92 vs 0.36), 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.