FNGS vs. DARP

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FNGS (MicroSectors FANG+ ETN) and DARP (Grizzle Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. FNGS is passively managed, while DARP is actively managed. Over the past year, FNGS returned 17.25% vs 68.50% for DARP. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FNGS charges 0.58%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for DARP.

Performance

FNGS vs. DARP - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FNGS achieves a 5.66% return, which is significantly lower than DARP's 26.21% return.

FNGS

• 1D: -2.36%
• 1M: -3.57%
• YTD: 5.66%
• 6M: 4.04%
• 1Y: 17.25%
• 3Y*: 29.30%
• 5Y*: 18.21%
• 10Y*: —

DARP

• 1D: -4.47%
• 1M: -1.76%
• YTD: 26.21%
• 6M: 25.50%
• 1Y: 68.50%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FNGS vs. DARP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	5.66%	18.64%	51.99%	15.91%
DARP Grizzle Growth ETF	26.21%	40.19%	24.63%	6.25%

Correlation

The correlation between FNGS and DARP is 0.72, 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	0.72
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 28, 2023	0.79

The correlation between FNGS and DARP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.

FNGS vs. DARP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FNGS	DARP
Technology	63.4%	49.5%
Communication Services	26.0%	17.2%
Consumer Cyclical	10.6%	5.6%
Financial Services	10.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	3.2%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	8.2%
Healthcare	-	1.4%
Industrials	-	7.7%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	4.6%

Return for Risk

FNGS vs. DARP — Risk / Return Rank

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

FNGS

FNGS Risk / Return Rank: 21
FNGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
FNGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
FNGS Omega Ratio Rank: 21
FNGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
FNGS Martin Ratio Rank: 19

DARP

DARP Risk / Return Rank: 85
DARP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
DARP Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
DARP Omega Ratio Rank: 78
DARP Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
DARP Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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.

FNGS vs. DARP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) and Grizzle Growth ETF (DARP). 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	DARP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.77	2.77	-2.01
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.18	3.19	-2.01
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	1.43	-0.28
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.76	5.83	-5.07
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.12	20.69	-18.57

FNGS vs. DARP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNGS Sharpe Ratio is 0.77, which is lower than the DARP Sharpe Ratio of 2.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNGS and DARP, 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. DARP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNGS drawdown since its inception was -48.98%, which is greater than DARP's maximum drawdown of -30.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNGS and DARP.

Drawdown Indicators

	FNGS	DARP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-48.98%	-30.27%	-18.71%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.93%	-11.82%	-11.11%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.77%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-48.98%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.58%	-5.59%	-4.99%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.84%	-4.64%	-6.20%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.14%	3.32%	+4.82%

Volatility

FNGS vs. DARP - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) and Grizzle Growth ETF (DARP) have volatilities of 10.97% and 10.71%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FNGS	DARP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.97%	10.71%	+0.26%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.01%	19.20%	-1.19%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.63%	24.83%	-2.20%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	30.25%	26.48%	+3.77%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.24%	26.48%	+4.76%

FNGS vs. DARP - Expense Ratio Comparison

FNGS has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is lower than DARP's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

FNGS vs. DARP - Dividend Comparison

FNGS has not paid dividends to shareholders, while DARP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.34%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
DARP Grizzle Growth ETF	0.34%	0.43%	1.93%	0.32%
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FNGS and DARP in my portfolio?

FNGS and DARP have a correlation of 0.72, 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 DARP?

FNGS has higher volatility (10.97%) compared to DARP (10.71%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FNGS dropped -48.98% vs DARP's -30.27%.

Which ETF is better, FNGS or DARP?

On 1-year performance, DARP leads with 68.50% vs 17.25% for FNGS. On fees, FNGS is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, DARP has been the lower-risk option at 10.71%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FNGS or DARP?

Over the 1-year period, DARP has performed better with a 68.50% return vs 17.25%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FNGS or DARP?

FNGS is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for DARP.

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

DARP has the higher dividend yield at 0.34%, compared with 0.00% for FNGS.

What is the main difference between FNGS and DARP?

They also come from different issuers: BMO and Grizzle. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for FNGS and 0.75% for DARP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DARP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.77 vs 0.77), 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.