FNGU vs. COTG
FNGU (MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs) and COTG (Leverage Shares 2X Long COST Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. FNGU is passively managed, while COTG is actively managed. At a correlation of -0.20, they often move in opposite directions. FNGU charges 2.60%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for COTG.
Performance
FNGU vs. COTG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FNGU achieves a 36.18% return, which is significantly higher than COTG's 17.32% return.
FNGU
- 1D
- -3.75%
- 1M
- 33.96%
- YTD
- 36.18%
- 6M
- 16.22%
- 1Y
- 64.67%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
COTG
- 1D
- 1.39%
- 1M
- -11.21%
- YTD
- 17.32%
- 6M
- 1.51%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
FNGU vs. COTG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
FNGU MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs | 36.18% | -16.47% |
COTG Leverage Shares 2X Long COST Daily ETF | 17.32% | -21.71% |
Correlation
The correlation between FNGU and COTG is -0.20, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 19, 2025 | -0.20 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
FNGU vs. COTG — Risk / Return Rank
FNGU
COTG
FNGU vs. COTG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs (FNGU) and Leverage Shares 2X Long COST Daily ETF (COTG). 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.
| FNGU | COTG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.21 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.09 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.64 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| FNGU | COTG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.13 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.40 | -0.28 | +0.68 |
Drawdowns
FNGU vs. COTG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FNGU drawdown since its inception was -60.84%, which is greater than COTG's maximum drawdown of -25.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNGU and COTG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FNGU | COTG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -60.84% | -25.69% | -35.15% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -59.55% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -4.84% | -23.48% | +18.64% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -22.06% | -8.35% | -13.71% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 24.57% | — | — |
Volatility
FNGU vs. COTG - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FNGU | COTG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 16.40% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 44.77% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 57.50% | 40.65% | +16.85% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 78.60% | 40.65% | +37.95% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 78.60% | 40.65% | +37.95% |
FNGU vs. COTG - Expense Ratio Comparison
FNGU has a 2.60% expense ratio, which is higher than COTG's 0.75% expense ratio.
Dividends
FNGU vs. COTG - Dividend Comparison
Neither FNGU nor COTG has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
FNGU and COTG have a correlation of -0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, COTG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
COTG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 2.60% for FNGU.
FNGU and COTG have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
They also come from different issuers: Bank of Montreal and Leverage Shares. Their fees differ too: 2.60% for FNGU and 0.75% for COTG.
Find the right allocation for FNGU and COTG
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