FNGS vs. QQQ

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FNGS (MicroSectors FANG+ ETN) and QQQ (Invesco QQQ ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FNGS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the NYSE FANG+ Index, while QQQ is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FNGS returned 18.21%/yr vs 16.01%/yr for QQQ. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FNGS charges 0.58%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for QQQ.

Performance

FNGS vs. QQQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) and Invesco QQQ ETF (QQQ). 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 QQQ's 16.45% return.

FNGS

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

QQQ

• 1D: -3.29%
• 1M: -0.43%
• YTD: 16.45%
• 6M: 14.99%
• 1Y: 34.88%
• 3Y*: 26.05%
• 5Y*: 16.01%
• 10Y*: 22.07%

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

FNGS vs. QQQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	5.66%	18.64%	51.99%	95.24%	-40.32%	16.96%	101.99%	10.10%
QQQ Invesco QQQ ETF	16.45%	20.77%	25.58%	54.86%	-32.58%	27.42%	48.62%	5.72%

Correlation

The correlation between FNGS and QQQ is 0.87, 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	0.87
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.90
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 13, 2019	0.90

The correlation between FNGS and QQQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

FNGS vs. QQQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FNGS	QQQ
Technology	63.4%	58.7%
Communication Services	26.0%	14.3%
Consumer Cyclical	10.6%	11.4%
Financial Services	10.0%	0.2%
Basic Materials	-	1.0%
Consumer Defensive	-	6.4%
Energy	-	0.5%
Healthcare	-	3.7%
Industrials	-	2.6%
Real Estate	-	0.1%
Utilities	-	1.2%

Return for Risk

FNGS vs. QQQ — 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

QQQ

QQQ Risk / Return Rank: 59
QQQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
QQQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
QQQ Omega Ratio Rank: 58
QQQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
QQQ Martin Ratio Rank: 62

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. QQQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) and Invesco QQQ ETF (QQQ). 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	QQQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.77	1.95	-1.19
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.18	2.57	-1.39
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	1.35	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.76	2.93	-2.17
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.12	10.86	-8.74

FNGS vs. QQQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNGS Sharpe Ratio is 0.77, which is lower than the QQQ Sharpe Ratio of 1.95. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNGS and QQQ, 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. QQQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNGS drawdown since its inception was -48.98%, smaller than the maximum QQQ drawdown of -82.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNGS and QQQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	FNGS	QQQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-48.98%	-82.97%	+33.99%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.93%	-11.96%	-10.97%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.77%	-22.77%	-4.00%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-48.98%	-35.12%	-13.86%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.12%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.58%	-4.25%	-6.33%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.84%	-32.73%	+21.89%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.14%	3.22%	+4.92%

Volatility

FNGS vs. QQQ - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) has a higher volatility of 10.97% compared to Invesco QQQ ETF (QQQ) at 9.17%. This indicates that FNGS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QQQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FNGS	QQQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.97%	9.17%	+1.80%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.01%	14.57%	+3.44%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.63%	17.96%	+4.67%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	30.25%	22.69%	+7.56%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.24%	22.42%	+8.82%

FNGS vs. QQQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

FNGS has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is higher than QQQ's 0.18% expense ratio.

Dividends

FNGS vs. QQQ - Dividend Comparison

FNGS has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QQQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.43%.

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%
QQQ Invesco QQQ ETF	0.43%	0.45%	0.56%	0.62%	0.80%	0.43%	0.55%	0.74%	0.91%	0.84%	1.06%	0.99%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FNGS and QQQ in my portfolio?

FNGS and QQQ have a correlation of 0.87, 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 QQQ?

FNGS has higher volatility (10.97%) compared to QQQ (9.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FNGS dropped -48.98% vs QQQ's -82.97%.

Which ETF is better, FNGS or QQQ?

On 5-year performance, FNGS leads with 18.21% vs 16.01% for QQQ. On fees, QQQ is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, QQQ has been the lower-risk option at 9.17%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FNGS or QQQ?

Over the 5-year period, FNGS has performed better with a 18.21% return vs 16.01%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FNGS or QQQ?

QQQ is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for FNGS.

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

QQQ has the higher dividend yield at 0.43%, compared with 0.00% for FNGS.

What is the main difference between FNGS and QQQ?

FNGS is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while QQQ is Nasdaq-100. FNGS tracks NYSE FANG+ Index, while QQQ tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. They also come from different issuers: BMO and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for FNGS and 0.18% for QQQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QQQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.95 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.