GDXD vs. FNGS

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

GDXD (MicroSectors Gold Miners -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs) and FNGS (MicroSectors FANG+ 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 FNGS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the NYSE FANG+ Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GDXD returned -73.69%/yr vs 18.21%/yr for FNGS. At a correlation of -0.23, they often move in opposite directions. GDXD charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for FNGS.

Performance

GDXD vs. FNGS - 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+ ETN (FNGS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GDXD achieves a -44.09% return, which is significantly lower than FNGS's 5.66% return.

GDXD

• 1D: 14.60%
• 1M: 10.85%
• YTD: -44.09%
• 6M: -36.28%
• 1Y: -92.07%
• 3Y*: -84.34%
• 5Y*: -73.69%
• 10Y*: —

FNGS

• 1D: -2.36%
• 1M: -3.57%
• YTD: 5.66%
• 6M: 4.04%
• 1Y: 17.25%
• 3Y*: 29.30%
• 5Y*: 18.21%
• 10Y*: —

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

GDXD vs. FNGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
GDXD MicroSectors Gold Miners -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs	-44.09%	-97.53%	-57.78%	-52.35%	-52.56%	-19.71%	-13.10%
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	5.66%	18.64%	51.99%	95.24%	-40.32%	16.96%	8.21%

Correlation

The correlation between GDXD and FNGS is -0.30, 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	-0.30
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.21
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. FNGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GDXD	FNGS
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. FNGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

GDXD

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

FNGS

FNGS Risk / Return Rank: 21
FNGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
FNGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
FNGS Omega Ratio Rank: 21
FNGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
FNGS Martin Ratio Rank: 19

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. FNGS - 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+ 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.

	GDXD	FNGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.64	0.77	-1.41
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.57	1.18	-2.75
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.83	1.15	-0.31
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.96	0.76	-1.71
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.17	2.12	-3.29

GDXD vs. FNGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GDXD Sharpe Ratio is -0.64, which is lower than the FNGS Sharpe Ratio of 0.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GDXD 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

GDXD vs. FNGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GDXD drawdown since its inception was -99.96%, which is greater than FNGS's maximum drawdown of -48.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GDXD and FNGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	GDXD	FNGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-99.96%	-48.98%	-50.98%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-96.33%	-22.93%	-73.40%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-99.86%	-26.77%	-73.09%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-99.96%	-48.98%	-50.98%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-99.92%	-10.58%	-89.34%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-72.06%	-10.84%	-61.22%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	78.80%	8.14%	+70.66%

Volatility

GDXD vs. FNGS - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors Gold Miners -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs (GDXD) has a higher volatility of 53.31% compared to MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) at 10.97%. This indicates that GDXD'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

	GDXD	FNGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	53.31%	10.97%	+42.34%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	117.73%	18.01%	+99.72%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	143.27%	22.63%	+120.64%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	111.54%	30.25%	+81.29%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	110.62%	31.24%	+79.38%

GDXD vs. FNGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

GDXD has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than FNGS's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

GDXD vs. FNGS - Dividend Comparison

Neither GDXD nor FNGS has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GDXD and FNGS in my portfolio?

GDXD and FNGS have a correlation of -0.30, 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 FNGS?

GDXD has higher volatility (53.31%) compared to FNGS (10.97%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GDXD dropped -99.96% vs FNGS's -48.98%.

Which ETF is better, GDXD or FNGS?

On 5-year performance, FNGS leads with 18.21% vs -73.69% for GDXD. On fees, FNGS is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, FNGS has been the lower-risk option at 10.97%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GDXD or FNGS?

Over the 5-year period, FNGS has performed better with a 18.21% return vs -73.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GDXD or FNGS?

FNGS is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for GDXD.

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

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

What is the main difference between GDXD and FNGS?

GDXD is categorized as Inverse Equities, while FNGS is Large Cap Growth Equities. GDXD tracks S-Network MicroSectors Gold Miners Index - Benchmark TR Gross (-300%), while FNGS tracks NYSE FANG+ Index. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for GDXD and 0.58% for FNGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FNGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.77 vs -0.64), 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.