PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
FNGS vs. RFDA
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

FNGS vs. RFDA

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

FNGS (MicroSectors FANG+ ETN) and RFDA (RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. FNGS is passively managed, while RFDA is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, FNGS returned 18.98%/yr vs 12.98%/yr for RFDA. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FNGS charges 0.58%/yr vs 0.52%/yr for RFDA.

Performance

FNGS vs. RFDA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) and RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA). 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 8.21% return, which is significantly lower than RFDA's 10.53% return.

FNGS

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

RFDA

1D
0.15%
1M
0.14%
YTD
10.53%
6M
10.30%
1Y
27.30%
3Y*
18.71%
5Y*
12.98%
10Y*
13.37%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FNGS vs. RFDA - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
FNGS
MicroSectors FANG+ ETN		8.21%18.64%51.99%95.24%-40.32%16.96%101.99%10.10%
RFDA
RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF		10.53%16.42%20.12%16.98%-8.58%25.94%11.26%4.31%

Correlation

The correlation between FNGS and RFDA is 0.53, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

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

0.53

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

0.64

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

0.66

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 13, 2019

0.66

The correlation between FNGS and RFDA shifts across timeframes, from 0.53 (1 year) to 0.66 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FNGS vs. RFDA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
FNGS
RFDA

Technology

63.4%
21.1%

Communication Services

26.0%
8.3%

Consumer Cyclical

10.6%
7.4%

Financial Services

10.0%
14.4%

Basic Materials

-

1.9%

Consumer Defensive

-

7.0%

Energy

-

11.7%

Healthcare

-

9.7%

Industrials

-

8.6%

Real Estate

-

4.9%

Utilities

-

4.8%

Technology

FNGS
63.4%
RFDA
21.1%

Communication Services

FNGS
26.0%
RFDA
8.3%

Consumer Cyclical

FNGS
10.6%
RFDA
7.4%

Financial Services

FNGS
10.0%
RFDA
14.4%

Basic Materials

FNGS

-

RFDA
1.9%

Consumer Defensive

FNGS

-

RFDA
7.0%

Energy

FNGS

-

RFDA
11.7%

Healthcare

FNGS

-

RFDA
9.7%

Industrials

FNGS

-

RFDA
8.6%

Real Estate

FNGS

-

RFDA
4.9%

Utilities

FNGS

-

RFDA
4.8%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

MicroSectors FANG+ ETN

RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF

Often compared with FNGS:
FNGS vs. MAGSFNGS vs. SPYFNGS vs. QQQFNGS vs. FNGOFNGS vs. QLDFNGS vs. SMHFNGS vs. MON100.NS
Often compared with RFDA:
RFDA vs. DGRORFDA vs. DIVBRFDA vs. AGGRFDA vs. BWXRFDA vs. HYGRFDA vs. SCHDRFDA vs. IAU

Return for Risk

FNGS vs. RFDA — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
FNGS
FNGS Risk / Return Rank: 2424
Overall Rank
FNGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2727
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FNGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 2626
Sortino Ratio Rank
FNGS Omega Ratio Rank: 2525
Omega Ratio Rank
FNGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 2020
Calmar Ratio Rank
FNGS Martin Ratio Rank: 2121
Martin Ratio Rank
RFDA
RFDA Risk / Return Rank: 8181
Overall Rank
RFDA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7676
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RFDA Sortino Ratio Rank: 7575
Sortino Ratio Rank
RFDA Omega Ratio Rank: 7676
Omega Ratio Rank
RFDA Calmar Ratio Rank: 8888
Calmar Ratio Rank
RFDA Martin Ratio Rank: 8787
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. RFDA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) and RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA). 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.

FNGSRFDADifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.93
2.34

-1.41

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.38
3.22

-1.84

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.17

1.43

-0.26

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.91

5.04

-4.13

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2.56

18.04

-15.47

FNGS vs. RFDA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNGS Sharpe Ratio is 0.93, which is lower than the RFDA Sharpe Ratio of 2.34. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNGS and RFDA, 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...

Drawdowns

FNGS vs. RFDA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNGS drawdown since its inception was -48.98%, which is greater than RFDA's maximum drawdown of -34.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNGS and RFDA.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

FNGSRFDADifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-48.98%

-34.60%

-14.38%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-22.93%

-5.45%

-17.48%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-26.77%

-19.35%

-7.42%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-48.98%

-19.35%

-29.63%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-34.60%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-8.42%

-1.89%

-6.53%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-10.84%

-3.73%

-7.11%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

8.11%

1.52%

+6.59%

Volatility

FNGS vs. RFDA - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) has a higher volatility of 10.75% compared to RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA) at 3.31%. This indicates that FNGS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RFDA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

FNGSRFDADifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

10.75%

3.31%

+7.44%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

17.87%

8.79%

+9.08%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

22.54%

11.75%

+10.79%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

30.24%

15.75%

+14.49%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

31.23%

16.87%

+14.36%

FNGS vs. RFDA - Expense Ratio Comparison

FNGS has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is higher than RFDA's 0.52% expense ratio.

Dividends

FNGS vs. RFDA - Dividend Comparison

FNGS has not paid dividends to shareholders, while RFDA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.80%.

PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019201820172016
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%
RFDA
RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF		1.80%1.89%2.23%2.68%3.57%1.44%1.62%1.87%2.44%1.90%0.98%

Frequently Asked Questions

FNGS and RFDA have a correlation of 0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

FNGS has higher volatility (10.75%) compared to RFDA (3.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FNGS dropped -48.98% vs RFDA's -34.60%.

On 5-year performance, FNGS leads with 18.98% vs 12.98% for RFDA. On fees, RFDA is cheaper at 0.52% per year. On volatility, RFDA has been the lower-risk option at 3.31%. 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 18.98% return vs 12.98%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

RFDA is cheaper with a 0.52% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for FNGS.

RFDA has the higher dividend yield at 1.80%, compared with 0.00% for FNGS.

They also come from different issuers: BMO and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for FNGS and 0.52% for RFDA.

RFDA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.34 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FNGS and RFDA

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