FNGU vs. FNGS

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

FNGU (MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs) and FNGS (MicroSectors FANG+ ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - FNGU is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the NYSE FANG+ Index (Gross Total Return) (300%), while FNGS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the NYSE FANG+ Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, FNGU returned 31.91% vs 21.76% for FNGS. Their 0.98 correlation means they have historically moved very closely together. FNGU charges 2.60%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for FNGS.

Performance

FNGU vs. FNGS - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FNGU achieves a 29.30% return, which is significantly higher than FNGS's 17.16% return.

FNGU

• 1D: 13.28%
• 1M: 23.29%
• 6M: 51.91%
• YTD: 29.30%
• 1Y: 31.91%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 21.84%

FNGS

• 1D: 4.11%
• 1M: 8.10%
• 6M: 22.77%
• YTD: 17.16%
• 1Y: 21.76%
• 3Y*: 33.01%
• 5Y*: 20.25%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 31.80%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	$2.07M	$2.12M	$2.49M
FNGU MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs	$124.87M	$122.34M	$155.63M

FNGU vs. FNGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
FNGU MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs	29.30%	3.02%
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	17.16%	12.22%

Correlation

The correlation between FNGU and FNGS is 0.98 - they have historically moved very closely together. At this level, their price movements offset little of one another.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.98
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 20, 2025	0.98

The correlation between FNGU and FNGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.98 to 0.98 - a consistent structural relationship.

FNGU vs. FNGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FNGU	FNGS
Technology	60.6%	59.6%
Communication Services	29.8%	30.0%
Consumer Cyclical	9.6%	10.4%
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	10.0%
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

FNGU vs. FNGS — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

FNGU

FNGU Risk / Return Rank: 22
FNGU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 20
FNGU Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
FNGU Omega Ratio Rank: 26
FNGU Calmar Ratio Rank: 19
FNGU Martin Ratio Rank: 18

FNGS

FNGS Risk / Return Rank: 32
FNGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
FNGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
FNGS Omega Ratio Rank: 33
FNGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
FNGS Martin Ratio Rank: 28

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

FNGU vs. FNGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs (FNGU) and MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS). 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.

	FNGU	FNGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.48	0.95	-0.47
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.09	1.43	-0.33
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	1.17	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.54	0.95	-0.42
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.20	2.53	-1.34

FNGU vs. FNGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNGU Sharpe Ratio is 0.48, which is lower than the FNGS Sharpe Ratio of 0.95. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNGU and FNGS, 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

FNGU vs. FNGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNGU drawdown since its inception was -61.30%, which is greater than FNGS's maximum drawdown of -48.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNGU and FNGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	FNGU	FNGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-61.30%	-48.98%	-12.32%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-59.55%	-22.93%	-36.62%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-26.77%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-48.98%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.65%	-0.85%	-8.80%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-22.57%	-10.79%	-11.78%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	26.71%	8.61%	+18.10%

Volatility

FNGU vs. FNGS - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs (FNGU) has a higher volatility of 22.79% compared to MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) at 7.67%. This indicates that FNGU's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FNGS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FNGU	FNGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	22.79%	7.67%	+15.12%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	55.65%	19.00%	+36.65%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	67.12%	23.19%	+43.93%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	80.47%	30.38%	+50.09%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	80.47%	31.12%	+49.35%

FNGU vs. FNGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

FNGU has a 2.60% expense ratio, which is higher than FNGS's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

FNGU vs. FNGS - Dividend Comparison

Neither FNGU nor FNGS has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FNGU and FNGS in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.98, FNGU and FNGS move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, FNGU or FNGS?

FNGU has higher volatility (22.79%) compared to FNGS (7.67%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FNGU dropped -61.30% vs FNGS's -48.98%.

Which ETF is better, FNGU or FNGS?

On 1-year performance, FNGU leads with 31.91% vs 21.76% for FNGS. On fees, FNGS is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, FNGS has been the lower-risk option at 7.67%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FNGU or FNGS?

Over the 1-year period, FNGU has performed better with a 31.91% return vs 21.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FNGU or FNGS?

FNGS is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 2.60% for FNGU.

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

FNGU and FNGS have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between FNGU and FNGS?

FNGU is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while FNGS is Large Cap Growth Equities. FNGU tracks NYSE FANG+ Index (Gross Total Return) (300%), while FNGS tracks NYSE FANG+ Index. Their fees differ too: 2.60% for FNGU and 0.58% for FNGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FNGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.95 vs 0.48), 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.