FNGS vs. CCOR

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

FNGS (MicroSectors FANG+ ETN) and CCOR (Core Alternative ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. FNGS is passively managed, while CCOR is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, FNGS returned 18.98%/yr vs -1.67%/yr for CCOR. Their -0.04 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. FNGS charges 0.58%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for CCOR.

Performance

FNGS vs. CCOR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) and Core Alternative ETF (CCOR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FNGS achieves a 9.02% return, which is significantly higher than CCOR's 0.43% return.

FNGS

• 1D: 1.63%
• 1M: 0.59%
• 6M: 12.42%
• YTD: 9.02%
• 1Y: 15.45%
• 3Y*: 28.64%
• 5Y*: 18.98%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 30.45%

CCOR

• 1D: -0.57%
• 1M: 0.53%
• 6M: -3.08%
• YTD: 0.43%
• 1Y: -1.08%
• 3Y*: -0.82%
• 5Y*: -1.67%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 1.70%

*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)
CCOR Core Alternative ETF	$61.54K	$68.15K	$77.63K
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	$1.57M	$1.92M	$2.40M

FNGS vs. CCOR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	9.02%	18.64%	51.99%	95.24%	-40.32%	16.96%	101.99%	10.10%
CCOR Core Alternative ETF	0.43%	3.52%	-5.70%	-11.92%	2.51%	9.90%	4.07%	2.56%

Correlation

The correlation between FNGS and CCOR is -0.31, 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.	-0.31
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	-0.33
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	-0.10
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 13, 2019	-0.04

Over the past year, the inverse relationship between FNGS and CCOR has strengthened: their correlation has moved from -0.04 to -0.31, meaning they now move in opposite directions more often than their long-term average.

FNGS vs. CCOR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FNGS	CCOR
Technology	59.6%	15.7%
Communication Services	30.0%	7.8%
Consumer Cyclical	10.4%	9.1%
Financial Services	10.0%	18.6%
Basic Materials	-	4.9%
Consumer Defensive	-	6.9%
Energy	-	6.4%
Healthcare	-	12.2%
Industrials	-	9.4%
Real Estate	-	2.8%
Utilities	-	6.3%

Return for Risk

FNGS vs. CCOR — Risk / Return Rank

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

FNGS

FNGS Risk / Return Rank: 22
FNGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
FNGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
FNGS Omega Ratio Rank: 23
FNGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
FNGS Martin Ratio Rank: 21

CCOR

CCOR Risk / Return Rank: 9
CCOR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9
CCOR Sortino Ratio Rank: 8
CCOR Omega Ratio Rank: 8
CCOR Calmar Ratio Rank: 9
CCOR Martin Ratio Rank: 9

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.

FNGS vs. CCOR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) and Core Alternative ETF (CCOR). 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.

	FNGS	CCOR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.52	-0.12	+0.64
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.86	-0.11	+0.97
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.10	0.99	+0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.51	-0.11	+0.63
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.37	-0.23	+1.60

FNGS vs. CCOR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNGS Sharpe Ratio is 0.52, which is higher than the CCOR Sharpe Ratio of -0.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNGS and CCOR, 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

FNGS vs. CCOR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNGS drawdown since its inception was -48.98%, which is greater than CCOR's maximum drawdown of -22.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNGS and CCOR.

Drawdown Indicators

	FNGS	CCOR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-48.98%	-22.99%	-25.99%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.93%	-8.79%	-14.14%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.77%	-12.31%	-14.46%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-48.98%	-22.99%	-25.99%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.74%	-16.59%	+8.85%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.80%	-7.47%	-3.33%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.61%	4.18%	+4.43%

Volatility

FNGS vs. CCOR - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) has a higher volatility of 5.87% compared to Core Alternative ETF (CCOR) at 3.61%. This indicates that FNGS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CCOR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FNGS	CCOR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.87%	3.61%	+2.26%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.36%	6.45%	+11.91%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.86%	8.20%	+14.66%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	30.29%	11.19%	+19.10%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.07%	10.78%	+20.29%

FNGS vs. CCOR - Expense Ratio Comparison

FNGS has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is lower than CCOR's 1.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

FNGS vs. CCOR - Dividend Comparison

FNGS has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CCOR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.99%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CCOR Core Alternative ETF	0.99%	1.07%	1.18%	1.21%	1.11%	1.02%	1.50%	0.73%	1.53%	0.89%
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FNGS and CCOR in my portfolio?

FNGS and CCOR have a correlation of -0.31, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FNGS or CCOR?

FNGS has higher volatility (5.87%) compared to CCOR (3.61%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FNGS dropped -48.98% vs CCOR's -22.99%.

Which ETF is better, FNGS or CCOR?

On 5-year performance, FNGS leads with 18.98% vs -1.67% for CCOR. On fees, FNGS is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, CCOR has been the lower-risk option at 3.61%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FNGS or CCOR?

Over the 5-year period, FNGS has performed better with a 18.98% return vs -1.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FNGS or CCOR?

FNGS is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for CCOR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FNGS or CCOR?

CCOR has the higher dividend yield at 0.99%, compared with 0.00% for FNGS.

What is the main difference between FNGS and CCOR?

They also come from different issuers: BMO and Core Alternative. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for FNGS and 1.09% for CCOR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FNGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.52 vs -0.12), 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.