FNGO vs. UCYB

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FNGO (MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN) and UCYB (ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Cybersecurity) are both Leveraged Equities funds - FNGO tracks the NYSE FANG+ Index (+200%) while UCYB tracks the Nasdaq CTA Cybersecurity Index (200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FNGO returned 30.44%/yr vs 20.44%/yr for UCYB. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FNGO charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.97%/yr for UCYB.

Performance

FNGO vs. UCYB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN (FNGO) and ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Cybersecurity (UCYB). 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 lower than UCYB's 63.86% return.

FNGO

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

UCYB

• 1D: -0.25%
• 1M: 85.17%
• YTD: 63.86%
• 6M: 55.64%
• 1Y: 50.77%
• 3Y*: 47.48%
• 5Y*: 20.44%
• 10Y*: —

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

FNGO vs. UCYB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FNGO MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN	29.63%	25.49%	101.65%	240.10%	-71.55%	14.03%
UCYB ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Cybersecurity	63.86%	9.41%	28.84%	68.85%	-55.15%	29.50%

Correlation

The correlation between FNGO and UCYB is 0.62, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.62
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.66
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.69
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 22, 2021	0.69

The correlation between FNGO and UCYB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.62 to 0.69 - a consistent structural relationship.

FNGO vs. UCYB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FNGO	UCYB
Technology	59.9%	95.1%
Communication Services	28.8%	0.1%
Consumer Cyclical	11.3%	-
Financial Services	10.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	4.8%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

FNGO vs. UCYB — 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

UCYB

UCYB Risk / Return Rank: 27
UCYB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
UCYB Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
UCYB Omega Ratio Rank: 30
UCYB Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
UCYB Martin Ratio Rank: 22

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. UCYB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN (FNGO) and ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Cybersecurity (UCYB). 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	UCYB	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.39	1.04	+0.35
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.94	1.61	+0.33
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.20	+0.03
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.29	1.24	+0.05
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	3.39	2.77	+0.62
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. UCYB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNGO Sharpe Ratio is 1.39, which is higher than the UCYB Sharpe Ratio of 1.04. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNGO and UCYB, 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	UCYB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.39	1.04	+0.35
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.51	0.41	+0.10
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.67	0.33	+0.33

Drawdowns

FNGO vs. UCYB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNGO drawdown since its inception was -78.39%, which is greater than UCYB's maximum drawdown of -62.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNGO and UCYB.

Drawdown Indicators

	FNGO	UCYB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-78.39%	-62.69%	-15.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-42.73%	-43.04%	+0.31%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-47.64%	-43.04%	-4.60%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-78.39%	-62.69%	-15.70%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.94%	-0.25%	-2.69%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-23.91%	-27.50%	+3.59%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	16.21%	19.32%	-3.11%

Volatility

FNGO vs. UCYB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN (FNGO) is 11.29%, while ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Cybersecurity (UCYB) has a volatility of 20.07%. This indicates that FNGO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than UCYB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FNGO	UCYB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.29%	20.07%	-8.78%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	30.58%	41.73%	-11.15%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	39.56%	49.13%	-9.57%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	60.24%	49.88%	+10.36%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	61.54%	49.59%	+11.95%

FNGO vs. UCYB - Expense Ratio Comparison

FNGO has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is lower than UCYB's 0.97% expense ratio.

Dividends

FNGO vs. UCYB - Dividend Comparison

FNGO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while UCYB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.32%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FNGO MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
UCYB ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Cybersecurity	1.32%	1.90%	2.16%	0.56%	0.00%	0.91%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FNGO and UCYB in my portfolio?

FNGO and UCYB have a correlation of 0.62, 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 UCYB?

UCYB has higher volatility (20.07%) compared to FNGO (11.29%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FNGO dropped -78.39% vs UCYB's -62.69%.

Which ETF is better, FNGO or UCYB?

On 5-year performance, FNGO leads with 30.44% vs 20.44% for UCYB. On fees, FNGO is cheaper at 0.95% per year. 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 UCYB?

Over the 5-year period, FNGO has performed better with a 30.44% return vs 20.44%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FNGO or UCYB?

FNGO is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 0.97% for UCYB.

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

UCYB has the higher dividend yield at 1.32%, compared with 0.00% for FNGO.

What is the main difference between FNGO and UCYB?

FNGO tracks NYSE FANG+ Index (+200%), while UCYB tracks Nasdaq CTA Cybersecurity Index (200%). They also come from different issuers: Bank of Montreal and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for FNGO and 0.97% for UCYB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FNGO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.39 vs 1.04), 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.