FNGU vs. RETL

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

FNGU (MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs) and RETL (Direxion Daily Retail Bull 3X Shares) are both Leveraged Equities funds - FNGU tracks the NYSE FANG+ Index (Gross Total Return) (300%) while RETL tracks the Russell 1000 Retail Index (300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past year, FNGU returned 21.24% vs 19.94% for RETL. At a 0.37 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FNGU charges 2.60%/yr vs 0.99%/yr for RETL.

Performance

FNGU vs. RETL - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FNGU achieves a 3.96% return, which is significantly higher than RETL's -0.70% return.

FNGU

• 1D: -2.52%
• 1M: -12.41%
• YTD: 3.96%
• 6M: -3.67%
• 1Y: 21.24%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RETL

• 1D: 0.11%
• 1M: 30.06%
• YTD: -0.70%
• 6M: -9.36%
• 1Y: 19.94%
• 3Y*: 10.78%
• 5Y*: -27.38%
• 10Y*: -3.60%

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

FNGU vs. RETL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
FNGU MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs	3.96%	3.02%
RETL Direxion Daily Retail Bull 3X Shares	-0.70%	-0.54%

Correlation

The correlation between FNGU and RETL is 0.29, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.29
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 20, 2025	0.37

FNGU vs. RETL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FNGU	RETL
Technology	60.6%	0.3%
Communication Services	29.8%	0.3%
Consumer Cyclical	9.6%	14.0%
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	3.9%
Energy	-	0.3%
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	0.3%
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

FNGU vs. RETL — Risk / Return Rank

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

FNGU

FNGU Risk / Return Rank: 16
FNGU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 15
FNGU Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
FNGU Omega Ratio Rank: 19
FNGU Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
FNGU Martin Ratio Rank: 14

RETL

RETL Risk / Return Rank: 17
RETL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 15
RETL Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
RETL Omega Ratio Rank: 18
RETL Calmar Ratio Rank: 16
RETL Martin Ratio Rank: 15

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. RETL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs (FNGU) and Direxion Daily Retail Bull 3X Shares (RETL). 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	RETL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.35	0.33	+0.02
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.87	0.92	-0.04
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	1.10	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.36	0.53	-0.17
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.85	1.08	-0.22

FNGU vs. RETL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNGU Sharpe Ratio is 0.35, which is comparable to the RETL Sharpe Ratio of 0.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNGU and RETL, 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. RETL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNGU drawdown since its inception was -61.30%, smaller than the maximum RETL drawdown of -92.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNGU and RETL.

Drawdown Indicators

	FNGU	RETL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-61.30%	-92.00%	+30.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-59.55%	-38.08%	-21.47%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-62.72%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-92.00%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-92.00%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-27.36%	-82.95%	+55.59%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-22.25%	-37.62%	+15.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	24.91%	18.57%	+6.34%

Volatility

FNGU vs. RETL - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs (FNGU) has a higher volatility of 27.31% compared to Direxion Daily Retail Bull 3X Shares (RETL) at 16.60%. This indicates that FNGU's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RETL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FNGU	RETL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	27.31%	16.60%	+10.71%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	50.15%	40.99%	+9.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	61.43%	60.71%	+0.72%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	79.93%	79.51%	+0.42%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	79.93%	79.80%	+0.13%

FNGU vs. RETL - Expense Ratio Comparison

FNGU has a 2.60% expense ratio, which is higher than RETL's 0.99% expense ratio.

Dividends

FNGU vs. RETL - Dividend Comparison

FNGU has not paid dividends to shareholders, while RETL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.51%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
FNGU MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RETL Direxion Daily Retail Bull 3X Shares	0.51%	0.58%	1.13%	1.35%	0.71%	0.22%	0.19%	0.92%	1.19%	0.01%	2.60%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FNGU and RETL in my portfolio?

FNGU and RETL have a correlation of 0.29, 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 RETL?

FNGU has higher volatility (27.31%) compared to RETL (16.60%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FNGU dropped -61.30% vs RETL's -92.00%.

Which ETF is better, FNGU or RETL?

On 1-year performance, FNGU leads with 21.24% vs 19.94% for RETL. On fees, RETL is cheaper at 0.99% per year. On volatility, RETL has been the lower-risk option at 16.60%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FNGU or RETL?

Over the 1-year period, FNGU has performed better with a 21.24% return vs 19.94%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FNGU or RETL?

RETL is cheaper with a 0.99% expense ratio, compared with 2.60% for FNGU.

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

RETL has the higher dividend yield at 0.51%, compared with 0.00% for FNGU.

What is the main difference between FNGU and RETL?

FNGU tracks NYSE FANG+ Index (Gross Total Return) (300%), while RETL tracks Russell 1000 Retail Index (300%). They also come from different issuers: Bank of Montreal and Direxion. Their fees differ too: 2.60% for FNGU and 0.99% for RETL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FNGU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.35 vs 0.33), 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.