FNGS vs. QQH

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

FNGS (MicroSectors FANG+ ETN) and QQH (HCM Defender 100 Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FNGS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the NYSE FANG+ Index, while QQH is a Technology Equities fund tracking the HCM Defender 100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FNGS returned 19.76%/yr vs 13.32%/yr for QQH. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FNGS charges 0.58%/yr vs 1.14%/yr for QQH.

Performance

FNGS vs. QQH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) and HCM Defender 100 Index ETF (QQH). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FNGS achieves a 6.79% return, which is significantly lower than QQH's 8.65% return.

FNGS

• 1D: -0.94%
• 1M: -3.68%
• YTD: 6.79%
• 6M: 4.25%
• 1Y: 19.09%
• 3Y*: 29.80%
• 5Y*: 19.76%
• 10Y*: —

QQH

• 1D: 0.72%
• 1M: -1.87%
• YTD: 8.65%
• 6M: 8.98%
• 1Y: 33.02%
• 3Y*: 22.44%
• 5Y*: 13.32%
• 10Y*: —

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

FNGS vs. QQH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	6.79%	18.64%	51.99%	95.24%	-40.32%	16.96%	101.99%	10.10%
QQH HCM Defender 100 Index ETF	8.65%	15.66%	33.64%	48.05%	-39.60%	37.52%	41.71%	7.03%

Correlation

The correlation between FNGS and QQH is 0.86, 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	0.86
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.89
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 13, 2019	0.86

The correlation between FNGS and QQH has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

FNGS vs. QQH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FNGS	QQH
Technology	59.9%	56.6%
Communication Services	28.8%	14.9%
Consumer Cyclical	11.3%	13.6%
Financial Services	10.0%	0.2%
Basic Materials	-	1.0%
Consumer Defensive	-	6.3%
Energy	-	0.5%
Healthcare	-	3.5%
Industrials	-	2.2%
Real Estate	-	0.0%
Utilities	-	1.2%

Return for Risk

FNGS vs. QQH — Risk / Return Rank

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

FNGS

FNGS Risk / Return Rank: 23
FNGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
FNGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
FNGS Omega Ratio Rank: 24
FNGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
FNGS Martin Ratio Rank: 20

QQH

QQH Risk / Return Rank: 42
QQH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 45
QQH Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
QQH Omega Ratio Rank: 43
QQH Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
QQH Martin Ratio Rank: 37

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. QQH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) and HCM Defender 100 Index ETF (QQH). 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	QQH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.79	1.39	-0.60
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.19	1.84	-0.66
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	1.24	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.75	1.91	-1.16
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.12	5.10	-2.98

FNGS vs. QQH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNGS Sharpe Ratio is 0.79, which is lower than the QQH Sharpe Ratio of 1.39. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNGS and QQH, 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. QQH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNGS drawdown since its inception was -48.98%, which is greater than QQH's maximum drawdown of -41.87%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNGS and QQH.

Drawdown Indicators

	FNGS	QQH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-48.98%	-41.87%	-7.11%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.93%	-16.18%	-6.75%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.77%	-24.84%	-1.93%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-48.98%	-41.87%	-7.11%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.63%	-5.87%	-3.76%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.85%	-12.90%	+2.05%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.05%	6.04%	+2.01%

Volatility

FNGS vs. QQH - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) is 8.74%, while HCM Defender 100 Index ETF (QQH) has a volatility of 9.85%. This indicates that FNGS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QQH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FNGS	QQH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.74%	9.85%	-1.11%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.19%	16.84%	+0.35%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.65%	22.17%	-0.52%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	30.10%	21.81%	+8.29%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.17%	24.89%	+6.28%

FNGS vs. QQH - Expense Ratio Comparison

FNGS has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is lower than QQH's 1.14% expense ratio.

Dividends

FNGS vs. QQH - Dividend Comparison

FNGS has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QQH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.19%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QQH HCM Defender 100 Index ETF	0.19%	0.21%	0.24%	0.27%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.21%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FNGS and QQH in my portfolio?

FNGS and QQH have a correlation of 0.86, 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 QQH?

QQH has higher volatility (9.85%) compared to FNGS (8.74%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FNGS dropped -48.98% vs QQH's -41.87%.

Which ETF is better, FNGS or QQH?

On 5-year performance, FNGS leads with 19.76% vs 13.32% for QQH. On fees, FNGS is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, FNGS has been the lower-risk option at 8.74%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FNGS or QQH?

Over the 5-year period, FNGS has performed better with a 19.76% return vs 13.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FNGS or QQH?

FNGS is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 1.14% for QQH.

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

QQH has the higher dividend yield at 0.19%, compared with 0.00% for FNGS.

What is the main difference between FNGS and QQH?

FNGS is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while QQH is Technology Equities. FNGS tracks NYSE FANG+ Index, while QQH tracks HCM Defender 100 Index. They also come from different issuers: BMO and Howard Capital Management. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for FNGS and 1.14% for QQH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QQH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.39 vs 0.79), 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.