FNGU vs. DRLL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FNGU (MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs) and DRLL (Strive U.S. Energy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FNGU is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the NYSE FANG+ Index (Gross Total Return) (300%), while DRLL is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Bloomberg US Energy Select Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, FNGU returned 64.67% vs 43.09% for DRLL. At a correlation of -0.04, they often move in opposite directions. FNGU charges 2.60%/yr vs 0.41%/yr for DRLL.

Performance

FNGU vs. DRLL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs (FNGU) and Strive U.S. Energy ETF (DRLL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FNGU achieves a 36.18% return, which is significantly higher than DRLL's 31.26% return.

FNGU

• 1D: -3.75%
• 1M: 33.96%
• YTD: 36.18%
• 6M: 16.22%
• 1Y: 64.67%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

DRLL

• 1D: 1.47%
• 1M: -1.82%
• YTD: 31.26%
• 6M: 27.14%
• 1Y: 43.09%
• 3Y*: 14.67%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FNGU vs. DRLL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
FNGU MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs	36.18%	4.24%
DRLL Strive U.S. Energy ETF	31.26%	-0.81%

Correlation

The correlation between FNGU and DRLL is -0.22, 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 (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.22
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 21, 2025	-0.04

The correlation between FNGU and DRLL shifts across timeframes, from -0.22 (1 year) to -0.04 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FNGU vs. DRLL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FNGU	DRLL
Technology	60.6%	-
Communication Services	29.8%	-
Consumer Cyclical	9.6%	0.9%
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	99.1%
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

FNGU vs. DRLL — Risk / Return Rank

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

FNGU

FNGU Risk / Return Rank: 27
FNGU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 30
FNGU Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
FNGU Omega Ratio Rank: 30
FNGU Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
FNGU Martin Ratio Rank: 21

DRLL

DRLL Risk / Return Rank: 55
DRLL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
DRLL Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
DRLL Omega Ratio Rank: 50
DRLL Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
DRLL Martin Ratio Rank: 52

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.

FNGU vs. DRLL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs (FNGU) and Strive U.S. Energy ETF (DRLL). 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	DRLL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.13	1.94	-0.81
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.69	2.49	-0.80
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.32	-0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.09	3.11	-2.02
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.64	8.82	-6.18
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FNGU vs. DRLL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNGU Sharpe Ratio is 1.13, which is lower than the DRLL Sharpe Ratio of 1.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNGU and DRLL, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FNGU	DRLL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.13	1.94	-0.81
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.40	0.57	-0.17

Drawdowns

FNGU vs. DRLL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNGU drawdown since its inception was -60.84%, which is greater than DRLL's maximum drawdown of -23.73%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNGU and DRLL.

Drawdown Indicators

	FNGU	DRLL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-60.84%	-23.73%	-37.11%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-59.55%	-13.93%	-45.62%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-23.73%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.84%	-8.10%	+3.26%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-22.06%	-8.02%	-14.04%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	24.57%	4.90%	+19.67%

Volatility

FNGU vs. DRLL - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs (FNGU) has a higher volatility of 16.40% compared to Strive U.S. Energy ETF (DRLL) at 9.15%. This indicates that FNGU's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DRLL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FNGU	DRLL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	16.40%	9.15%	+7.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	44.77%	18.04%	+26.73%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	57.50%	22.34%	+35.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	78.60%	23.76%	+54.84%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	78.60%	23.76%	+54.84%

FNGU vs. DRLL - Expense Ratio Comparison

FNGU has a 2.60% expense ratio, which is higher than DRLL's 0.41% expense ratio.

Dividends

FNGU vs. DRLL - Dividend Comparison

FNGU has not paid dividends to shareholders, while DRLL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.33%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
DRLL Strive U.S. Energy ETF	2.33%	2.99%	3.00%	3.01%	1.18%
FNGU MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FNGU and DRLL in my portfolio?

FNGU and DRLL have a correlation of -0.22, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FNGU or DRLL?

FNGU has higher volatility (16.40%) compared to DRLL (9.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FNGU dropped -60.84% vs DRLL's -23.73%.

Which ETF is better, FNGU or DRLL?

On 1-year performance, FNGU leads with 64.67% vs 43.09% for DRLL. On fees, DRLL is cheaper at 0.41% per year. On volatility, DRLL has been the lower-risk option at 9.15%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FNGU or DRLL?

Over the 1-year period, FNGU has performed better with a 64.67% return vs 43.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FNGU or DRLL?

DRLL is cheaper with a 0.41% expense ratio, compared with 2.60% for FNGU.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FNGU or DRLL?

DRLL has the higher dividend yield at 2.33%, compared with 0.00% for FNGU.

What is the main difference between FNGU and DRLL?

FNGU is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while DRLL is Energy Equities. FNGU tracks NYSE FANG+ Index (Gross Total Return) (300%), while DRLL tracks Bloomberg US Energy Select Index. They also come from different issuers: Bank of Montreal and Strive. Their fees differ too: 2.60% for FNGU and 0.41% for DRLL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DRLL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.94 vs 1.13), 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.