FNGS vs. QUS

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

FNGS (MicroSectors FANG+ ETN) and QUS (SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds - FNGS tracks the NYSE FANG+ Index while QUS tracks the MSCI USA Factor Mix A-Series Capped (USD). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FNGS returned 18.98%/yr vs 10.96%/yr for QUS. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FNGS charges 0.58%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for QUS.

Performance

FNGS vs. QUS - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FNGS achieves a 8.21% return, which is significantly higher than QUS's 6.05% return.

FNGS

• 1D: -3.05%
• 1M: -1.23%
• YTD: 8.21%
• 6M: 7.55%
• 1Y: 20.76%
• 3Y*: 30.34%
• 5Y*: 18.98%
• 10Y*: —

QUS

• 1D: -0.07%
• 1M: -0.89%
• YTD: 6.05%
• 6M: 5.54%
• 1Y: 17.94%
• 3Y*: 16.88%
• 5Y*: 10.96%
• 10Y*: 13.72%

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

FNGS vs. QUS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	8.21%	18.64%	51.99%	95.24%	-40.32%	16.96%	101.99%	10.10%
QUS SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF	6.05%	14.13%	18.99%	21.78%	-14.15%	26.72%	12.40%	4.68%

Correlation

The correlation between FNGS and QUS is 0.48, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.48
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.59
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.68
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 13, 2019	0.66

The correlation between FNGS and QUS shifts across timeframes, from 0.48 (1 year) to 0.68 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FNGS vs. QUS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FNGS	QUS
Technology	63.4%	29.2%
Communication Services	26.0%	9.9%
Consumer Cyclical	10.6%	5.5%
Financial Services	10.0%	14.0%
Basic Materials	-	2.2%
Consumer Defensive	-	8.7%
Energy	-	4.2%
Healthcare	-	13.4%
Industrials	-	8.2%
Real Estate	-	1.3%
Utilities	-	3.4%

Return for Risk

FNGS vs. QUS — Risk / Return Rank

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

FNGS

FNGS Risk / Return Rank: 24
FNGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
FNGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
FNGS Omega Ratio Rank: 25
FNGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
FNGS Martin Ratio Rank: 21

QUS

QUS Risk / Return Rank: 60
QUS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
QUS Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
QUS Omega Ratio Rank: 59
QUS Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
QUS Martin Ratio Rank: 66

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. QUS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) and SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF (QUS). 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	QUS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.93	1.95	-1.02
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.38	2.77	-1.39
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.17	1.35	-0.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.91	2.63	-1.72
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.56	11.66	-9.09

FNGS vs. QUS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNGS Sharpe Ratio is 0.93, which is lower than the QUS Sharpe Ratio of 1.95. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNGS and QUS, 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. QUS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNGS drawdown since its inception was -48.98%, which is greater than QUS's maximum drawdown of -33.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNGS and QUS.

Drawdown Indicators

	FNGS	QUS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-48.98%	-33.78%	-15.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.93%	-6.85%	-16.08%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.77%	-13.94%	-12.83%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-48.98%	-22.30%	-26.68%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-33.78%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.42%	-1.61%	-6.81%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.84%	-3.69%	-7.15%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.11%	1.54%	+6.57%

Volatility

FNGS vs. QUS - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) has a higher volatility of 10.75% compared to SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF (QUS) at 2.83%. This indicates that FNGS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QUS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FNGS	QUS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.75%	2.83%	+7.92%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.87%	6.98%	+10.89%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.54%	9.25%	+13.29%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	30.24%	14.34%	+15.90%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.23%	16.44%	+14.79%

FNGS vs. QUS - Expense Ratio Comparison

FNGS has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is higher than QUS's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

FNGS vs. QUS - Dividend Comparison

FNGS has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QUS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.32%.

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%
QUS SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF	1.32%	1.38%	1.49%	1.57%	1.68%	1.27%	1.73%	1.81%	2.12%	1.86%	2.07%	1.48%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FNGS and QUS in my portfolio?

FNGS and QUS have a correlation of 0.48, 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 QUS?

FNGS has higher volatility (10.75%) compared to QUS (2.83%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FNGS dropped -48.98% vs QUS's -33.78%.

Which ETF is better, FNGS or QUS?

On 5-year performance, FNGS leads with 18.98% vs 10.96% for QUS. On fees, QUS is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, QUS has been the lower-risk option at 2.83%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FNGS or QUS?

Over the 5-year period, FNGS has performed better with a 18.98% return vs 10.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FNGS or QUS?

QUS is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for FNGS.

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

QUS has the higher dividend yield at 1.32%, compared with 0.00% for FNGS.

What is the main difference between FNGS and QUS?

FNGS tracks NYSE FANG+ Index, while QUS tracks MSCI USA Factor Mix A-Series Capped (USD). They also come from different issuers: BMO and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for FNGS and 0.15% for QUS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QUS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.95 vs 0.93), 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.