FNGU vs. QTJL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FNGU (MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs) and QTJL (Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - July) are both Leveraged Equities funds. FNGU is passively managed, while QTJL is actively managed. Over the past year, FNGU returned 64.67% vs 20.52% for QTJL. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FNGU charges 2.60%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for QTJL.

Performance

FNGU vs. QTJL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs (FNGU) and Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - July (QTJL). 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 QTJL's 7.15% return.

FNGU

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

QTJL

• 1D: -0.01%
• 1M: 1.20%
• YTD: 7.15%
• 6M: 7.91%
• 1Y: 20.52%
• 3Y*: 19.20%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FNGU vs. QTJL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
FNGU MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs	36.18%	4.24%
QTJL Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - July	7.15%	16.05%

Correlation

The correlation between FNGU and QTJL is 0.77, 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	0.77
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 21, 2025	0.81

The correlation between FNGU and QTJL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.77 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

FNGU vs. QTJL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FNGU	QTJL
Technology	60.6%	54.2%
Communication Services	29.8%	15.5%
Consumer Cyclical	9.6%	12.2%
Basic Materials	-	1.2%
Consumer Defensive	-	7.6%
Energy	-	0.6%
Financial Services	-	0.2%
Healthcare	-	4.2%
Industrials	-	2.8%
Real Estate	-	0.1%
Utilities	-	1.4%

Return for Risk

FNGU vs. QTJL — 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

QTJL

QTJL Risk / Return Rank: 68
QTJL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
QTJL Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
QTJL Omega Ratio Rank: 70
QTJL Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
QTJL Martin Ratio Rank: 81

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. QTJL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs (FNGU) and Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - July (QTJL). 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	QTJL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.13	2.06	-0.93
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.69	2.93	-1.23
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.42	-0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.09	3.08	-1.99
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.64	16.23	-13.59
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. QTJL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNGU Sharpe Ratio is 1.13, which is lower than the QTJL Sharpe Ratio of 2.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNGU and QTJL, 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	QTJL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.13	2.06	-0.93
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.40	0.52	-0.12

Drawdowns

FNGU vs. QTJL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNGU drawdown since its inception was -60.84%, which is greater than QTJL's maximum drawdown of -33.40%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNGU and QTJL.

Drawdown Indicators

	FNGU	QTJL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-60.84%	-33.40%	-27.44%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-59.55%	-6.68%	-52.87%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-22.43%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.84%	-0.01%	-4.83%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-22.06%	-7.94%	-14.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	24.57%	1.27%	+23.30%

Volatility

FNGU vs. QTJL - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs (FNGU) has a higher volatility of 16.40% compared to Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - July (QTJL) at 0.31%. This indicates that FNGU's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QTJL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FNGU	QTJL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	16.40%	0.31%	+16.09%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	44.77%	7.61%	+37.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	57.50%	10.01%	+47.49%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	78.60%	20.42%	+58.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	78.60%	20.42%	+58.18%

FNGU vs. QTJL - Expense Ratio Comparison

FNGU has a 2.60% expense ratio, which is higher than QTJL's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

FNGU vs. QTJL - Dividend Comparison

Neither FNGU nor QTJL has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FNGU and QTJL in my portfolio?

FNGU and QTJL have a correlation of 0.77, 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 QTJL?

FNGU has higher volatility (16.40%) compared to QTJL (0.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FNGU dropped -60.84% vs QTJL's -33.40%.

Which ETF is better, FNGU or QTJL?

On 1-year performance, FNGU leads with 64.67% vs 20.52% for QTJL. On fees, QTJL is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, QTJL has been the lower-risk option at 0.31%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FNGU or QTJL?

Over the 1-year period, FNGU has performed better with a 64.67% return vs 20.52%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FNGU or QTJL?

QTJL is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 2.60% for FNGU.

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

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

What is the main difference between FNGU and QTJL?

They also come from different issuers: Bank of Montreal and Innovator. Their fees differ too: 2.60% for FNGU and 0.79% for QTJL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QTJL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.06 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.