FNGS vs. PFM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FNGS (MicroSectors FANG+ ETN) and PFM (Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds - FNGS tracks the NYSE FANG+ Index while PFM tracks the NASDAQ US Broad Dividend Achievers Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FNGS returned 22.01%/yr vs 10.63%/yr for PFM. A 0.53 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FNGS charges 0.58%/yr vs 0.53%/yr for PFM.

Performance

FNGS vs. PFM - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FNGS achieves a 16.26% return, which is significantly higher than PFM's 8.18% return.

FNGS

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

PFM

• 1D: -0.23%
• 1M: 3.40%
• YTD: 8.18%
• 6M: 7.73%
• 1Y: 19.65%
• 3Y*: 16.31%
• 5Y*: 10.63%
• 10Y*: 11.82%

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

FNGS vs. PFM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	16.26%	18.64%	51.99%	95.24%	-40.32%	16.96%	101.99%	10.91%
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF	8.18%	14.00%	16.87%	11.40%	-6.22%	23.08%	9.53%	3.43%

Correlation

The correlation between FNGS and PFM is 0.39, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.39
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.47
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.54
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 14, 2019	0.53

The correlation between FNGS and PFM shifts across timeframes, from 0.39 (1 year) to 0.54 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FNGS vs. PFM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FNGS	PFM
Technology	59.9%	24.7%
Communication Services	28.8%	1.1%
Consumer Cyclical	11.3%	4.0%
Financial Services	10.0%	18.5%
Basic Materials	-	3.0%
Consumer Defensive	-	12.0%
Energy	-	4.7%
Healthcare	-	14.9%
Industrials	-	11.1%
Real Estate	-	2.0%
Utilities	-	4.2%

Return for Risk

FNGS vs. PFM — Risk / Return Rank

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

FNGS

FNGS Risk / Return Rank: 34
FNGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
FNGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
FNGS Omega Ratio Rank: 38
FNGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
FNGS Martin Ratio Rank: 27

PFM

PFM Risk / Return Rank: 62
PFM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
PFM Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
PFM Omega Ratio Rank: 61
PFM Calmar Ratio Rank: 56
PFM Martin Ratio Rank: 63

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. PFM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) and Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM). 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.

	FNGS	PFM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.46	2.09	-0.63
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.03	3.07	-1.04
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.38	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.30	2.78	-1.48
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.77	11.28	-7.51
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FNGS vs. PFM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNGS Sharpe Ratio is 1.46, which is lower than the PFM Sharpe Ratio of 2.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNGS and PFM, 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

	FNGS	PFM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.46	2.09	-0.63
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.74	0.79	-0.05
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.78	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.06	0.53	+0.53

Drawdowns

FNGS vs. PFM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNGS drawdown since its inception was -48.98%, smaller than the maximum PFM drawdown of -53.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNGS and PFM.

Drawdown Indicators

	FNGS	PFM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-48.98%	-53.21%	+4.23%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.93%	-7.09%	-15.84%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.77%	-14.50%	-12.27%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-48.98%	-17.81%	-31.17%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-32.22%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.61%	-0.23%	-1.38%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.87%	-6.94%	-3.93%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.92%	1.75%	+6.17%

Volatility

FNGS vs. PFM - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) has a higher volatility of 5.64% compared to Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM) at 2.04%. This indicates that FNGS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PFM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FNGS	PFM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.64%	2.04%	+3.60%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.68%	7.13%	+8.55%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.49%	9.47%	+11.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.96%	13.54%	+16.42%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.12%	15.21%	+15.91%

FNGS vs. PFM - Expense Ratio Comparison

FNGS has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is higher than PFM's 0.53% expense ratio.

Dividends

FNGS vs. PFM - Dividend Comparison

FNGS has not paid dividends to shareholders, while PFM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.33%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF	1.33%	1.41%	1.58%	1.86%	1.95%	1.69%	1.92%	1.94%	2.27%	1.70%	2.56%	2.36%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FNGS and PFM in my portfolio?

FNGS and PFM have a correlation of 0.39, 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 PFM?

FNGS has higher volatility (5.64%) compared to PFM (2.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FNGS dropped -48.98% vs PFM's -53.21%.

Which ETF is better, FNGS or PFM?

On 5-year performance, FNGS leads with 22.01% vs 10.63% for PFM. On fees, PFM is cheaper at 0.53% per year. On volatility, PFM has been the lower-risk option at 2.04%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FNGS or PFM?

Over the 5-year period, FNGS has performed better with a 22.01% return vs 10.63%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FNGS or PFM?

PFM is cheaper with a 0.53% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for FNGS.

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

PFM has the higher dividend yield at 1.33%, compared with 0.00% for FNGS.

What is the main difference between FNGS and PFM?

FNGS tracks NYSE FANG+ Index, while PFM tracks NASDAQ US Broad Dividend Achievers Index. They also come from different issuers: BMO and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for FNGS and 0.53% for PFM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PFM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.09 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.