GDXD vs. FNGD

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

GDXD (MicroSectors Gold Miners -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs) and FNGD (MicroSectors FANG+™ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - GDXD is a Inverse Equities fund tracking the S-Network MicroSectors Gold Miners Index - Benchmark TR Gross (-300%), while FNGD is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the NYSE FANG+ Index (-300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GDXD returned -72.96%/yr vs -62.88%/yr for FNGD. At a 0.23 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

GDXD vs. FNGD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors Gold Miners -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs (GDXD) and MicroSectors FANG+™ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (FNGD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with GDXD having a -37.37% return and FNGD slightly higher at -35.56%.

GDXD

• 1D: 8.77%
• 1M: 16.42%
• 6M: -11.19%
• YTD: -37.37%
• 1Y: -91.03%
• 3Y*: -82.31%
• 5Y*: -72.96%
• 10Y*: —

FNGD

• 1D: 2.44%
• 1M: -11.47%
• 6M: -35.07%
• YTD: -35.56%
• 1Y: -49.24%
• 3Y*: -65.19%
• 5Y*: -62.88%
• 10Y*: —

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

GDXD vs. FNGD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
GDXD MicroSectors Gold Miners -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs	-37.37%	-97.53%	-57.78%	-52.35%	-52.56%	-19.71%	-13.10%
FNGD MicroSectors FANG+™ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN	-35.56%	-61.42%	-76.57%	-90.14%	52.21%	-60.04%	-23.10%

Correlation

The correlation between GDXD and FNGD is 0.31, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.31
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.22
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.22
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 3, 2020	0.23

GDXD vs. FNGD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GDXD	FNGD
Basic Materials	100.0%	-
Communication Services	-	26.0%
Consumer Cyclical	-	10.6%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	10.0%
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	63.4%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

GDXD vs. FNGD — Risk / Return Rank

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

GDXD

GDXD Risk / Return Rank: 3
GDXD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
GDXD Sortino Ratio Rank: 2
GDXD Omega Ratio Rank: 2
GDXD Calmar Ratio Rank: 1
GDXD Martin Ratio Rank: 4

FNGD

FNGD Risk / Return Rank: 3
FNGD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3
FNGD Sortino Ratio Rank: 3
FNGD Omega Ratio Rank: 4
FNGD Calmar Ratio Rank: 3
FNGD Martin Ratio Rank: 1

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.

GDXD vs. FNGD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors Gold Miners -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs (GDXD) and MicroSectors FANG+™ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (FNGD). 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.

	GDXD	FNGD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.63	-0.76	+0.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.41	-1.00	-0.41
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.85	0.89	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.95	-0.75	-0.20
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.12	-1.52	+0.40

GDXD vs. FNGD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GDXD Sharpe Ratio is -0.63, which is comparable to the FNGD Sharpe Ratio of -0.76. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GDXD and FNGD, 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

GDXD vs. FNGD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GDXD drawdown since its inception was -99.96%, roughly equal to the maximum FNGD drawdown of -100.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GDXD and FNGD.

Drawdown Indicators

	GDXD	FNGD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-99.96%	-100.00%	+0.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-96.19%	-65.92%	-30.27%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-99.86%	-97.35%	-2.51%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-99.96%	-99.67%	-0.29%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-99.91%	-100.00%	+0.09%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-72.32%	-87.38%	+15.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	80.98%	32.60%	+48.38%

Volatility

GDXD vs. FNGD - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors Gold Miners -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs (GDXD) has a higher volatility of 47.16% compared to MicroSectors FANG+™ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (FNGD) at 25.56%. This indicates that GDXD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FNGD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GDXD	FNGD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	47.16%	25.56%	+21.60%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	117.86%	53.43%	+64.43%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	144.94%	65.22%	+79.72%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	112.08%	89.65%	+22.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	110.75%	91.07%	+19.68%

GDXD vs. FNGD - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both GDXD and FNGD have an expense ratio of 0.95%.

Dividends

GDXD vs. FNGD - Dividend Comparison

Neither GDXD nor FNGD has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GDXD and FNGD in my portfolio?

GDXD and FNGD have a correlation of 0.31, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GDXD or FNGD?

GDXD has higher volatility (47.16%) compared to FNGD (25.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GDXD dropped -99.96% vs FNGD's -100.00%.

Which ETF is better, GDXD or FNGD?

On 5-year performance, FNGD leads with -62.88% vs -72.96% for GDXD. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, FNGD has been the lower-risk option at 25.56%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GDXD or FNGD?

Over the 5-year period, FNGD has performed better with a -62.88% return vs -72.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GDXD or FNGD?

GDXD and FNGD have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GDXD or FNGD?

GDXD and FNGD have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between GDXD and FNGD?

GDXD is categorized as Inverse Equities, while FNGD is Leveraged Equities. GDXD tracks S-Network MicroSectors Gold Miners Index - Benchmark TR Gross (-300%), while FNGD tracks NYSE FANG+ Index (-300%).

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GDXD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.63 vs -0.76), 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.