PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
FNGS vs. ILCG
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

FNGS vs. ILCG - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FNGS achieves a 16.26% return, which is significantly higher than ILCG's 14.48% return.


FNGS

1D
-0.98%
1M
11.24%
YTD
16.26%
6M
10.77%
1Y
29.78%
3Y*
35.29%
5Y*
22.01%
10Y*

ILCG

1D
-1.02%
1M
7.68%
YTD
14.48%
6M
14.61%
1Y
29.51%
3Y*
26.55%
5Y*
14.95%
10Y*
18.15%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FNGS vs. ILCG - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
FNGS
MicroSectors FANG+ ETN
16.26%18.64%51.99%95.24%-40.32%16.96%101.99%10.91%
ILCG
iShares Morningstar Growth ETF
14.48%16.71%32.82%40.41%-31.75%24.33%38.56%6.67%

Correlation

The correlation between FNGS and ILCG is 0.85, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.85

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.90

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.90

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 14, 2019

0.89

The correlation between FNGS and ILCG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

FNGS vs. ILCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
FNGS
ILCG

Technology

59.9%
49.8%

Communication Services

28.8%
14.5%

Consumer Cyclical

11.3%
10.6%

Financial Services

10.0%
6.0%

Basic Materials

-

1.1%

Consumer Defensive

-

1.6%

Energy

-

0.5%

Healthcare

-

5.3%

Industrials

-

8.3%

Real Estate

-

1.4%

Utilities

-

0.8%

Technology

FNGS
59.9%
ILCG
49.8%

Communication Services

FNGS
28.8%
ILCG
14.5%

Consumer Cyclical

FNGS
11.3%
ILCG
10.6%

Financial Services

FNGS
10.0%
ILCG
6.0%

Basic Materials

FNGS

-

ILCG
1.1%

Consumer Defensive

FNGS

-

ILCG
1.6%

Energy

FNGS

-

ILCG
0.5%

Healthcare

FNGS

-

ILCG
5.3%

Industrials

FNGS

-

ILCG
8.3%

Real Estate

FNGS

-

ILCG
1.4%

Utilities

FNGS

-

ILCG
0.8%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

FNGS vs. ILCG — Risk / Return Rank

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

FNGS
FNGS Risk / Return Rank: 3434
Overall Rank
FNGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4040
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FNGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 3939
Sortino Ratio Rank
FNGS Omega Ratio Rank: 3838
Omega Ratio Rank
FNGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 2727
Calmar Ratio Rank
FNGS Martin Ratio Rank: 2727
Martin Ratio Rank

ILCG
ILCG Risk / Return Rank: 4646
Overall Rank
ILCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5252
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ILCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 4949
Sortino Ratio Rank
ILCG Omega Ratio Rank: 5050
Omega Ratio Rank
ILCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 3838
Calmar Ratio Rank
ILCG Martin Ratio Rank: 4141
Martin Ratio Rank
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. ILCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) and iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG). 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.


FNGSILCGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.36

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.41

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.26

1.32

-0.06

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.30

1.89

-0.59

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.77

6.68

-2.91

FNGS vs. ILCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNGS Sharpe Ratio is 1.46, which is comparable to the ILCG Sharpe Ratio of 1.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNGS and ILCG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


FNGSILCGDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.46

1.82

-0.36

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.74

0.68

+0.06

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.85

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.06

0.59

+0.47

Drawdowns

FNGS vs. ILCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNGS drawdown since its inception was -48.98%, smaller than the maximum ILCG drawdown of -52.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNGS and ILCG.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


FNGSILCGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-48.98%

-52.98%

+4.00%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-22.93%

-15.65%

-7.28%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-26.77%

-23.10%

-3.67%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-48.98%

-35.38%

-13.60%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-35.38%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.61%

-1.02%

-0.59%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-10.87%

-8.22%

-2.65%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

7.92%

4.43%

+3.49%

Volatility

FNGS vs. ILCG - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) has a higher volatility of 5.64% compared to iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG) at 4.40%. This indicates that FNGS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ILCG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


FNGSILCGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.64%

4.40%

+1.24%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

15.68%

12.81%

+2.87%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

20.49%

16.31%

+4.18%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

29.96%

22.00%

+7.96%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

31.12%

21.53%

+9.59%

FNGS vs. ILCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

FNGS has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is higher than ILCG's 0.04% expense ratio.


Dividends

FNGS vs. ILCG - Dividend Comparison

FNGS has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ILCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.40%.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FNGS
MicroSectors FANG+ ETN
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
ILCG
iShares Morningstar Growth ETF
0.40%0.47%0.50%0.69%0.75%0.34%0.28%0.54%0.81%0.89%0.95%0.99%

Frequently Asked Questions


FNGS and ILCG have a correlation of 0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

FNGS has higher volatility (5.64%) compared to ILCG (4.40%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FNGS dropped -48.98% vs ILCG's -52.98%.

On 5-year performance, FNGS leads with 22.01% vs 14.95% for ILCG. On fees, ILCG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, ILCG has been the lower-risk option at 4.40%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, FNGS has performed better with a 22.01% return vs 14.95%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

ILCG is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for FNGS.

ILCG has the higher dividend yield at 0.40%, compared with 0.00% for FNGS.

FNGS tracks NYSE FANG+ Index, while ILCG tracks Morningstar US Large-Mid Cap Broad Growth Index Gross. They also come from different issuers: BMO and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for FNGS and 0.04% for ILCG.

ILCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.82 vs 1.46), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FNGS and ILCG

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer