GLL vs. FNGD

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

GLL (ProShares UltraShort Gold) and FNGD (MicroSectors FANG+™ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - GLL is a Leveraged Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Gold (-200%), while FNGD is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the NYSE FANG+ Index (-300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GLL returned -29.04%/yr vs -63.34%/yr for FNGD. At a 0.07 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

GLL vs. FNGD - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLL achieves a -4.93% return, which is significantly higher than FNGD's -32.18% return.

GLL

• 1D: 1.30%
• 1M: 14.51%
• YTD: -4.93%
• 6M: 0.89%
• 1Y: -42.21%
• 3Y*: -40.08%
• 5Y*: -29.04%
• 10Y*: -21.56%

FNGD

• 1D: 7.85%
• 1M: -4.69%
• YTD: -32.18%
• 6M: -30.47%
• 1Y: -54.47%
• 3Y*: -66.30%
• 5Y*: -63.34%
• 10Y*: —

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

GLL vs. FNGD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
GLL ProShares UltraShort Gold	-4.93%	-62.81%	-33.33%	-14.91%	-2.12%	1.66%	-41.47%	-26.95%	10.48%
FNGD MicroSectors FANG+™ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN	-32.18%	-61.42%	-76.57%	-90.14%	52.21%	-60.04%	-95.60%	-72.46%	-16.61%

Correlation

The correlation between GLL and FNGD is 0.19, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.19
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.11
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.09
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 23, 2018	0.07

The correlation between GLL and FNGD shifts across timeframes, from 0.07 (all time) to 0.19 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

GLL vs. FNGD — Risk / Return Rank

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

GLL

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

FNGD

FNGD Risk / Return Rank: 2
FNGD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2
FNGD Sortino Ratio Rank: 2
FNGD Omega Ratio Rank: 2
FNGD Calmar Ratio Rank: 2
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.

GLL vs. FNGD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares UltraShort Gold (GLL) 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.

	GLL	FNGD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.78	-0.84	+0.06
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.13	-1.22	+0.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.87	0.86	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.65	-0.83	+0.18
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.98	-1.60	+0.62

GLL vs. FNGD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLL Sharpe Ratio is -0.78, which is comparable to the FNGD Sharpe Ratio of -0.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLL 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

GLL vs. FNGD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLL drawdown since its inception was -99.24%, roughly equal to the maximum FNGD drawdown of -100.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLL and FNGD.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLL	FNGD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-99.24%	-100.00%	+0.76%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-65.10%	-65.92%	+0.82%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-87.95%	-97.35%	+9.40%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-89.76%	-99.67%	+9.91%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-95.76%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-98.82%	-100.00%	+1.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-85.15%	-87.29%	+2.14%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	43.00%	35.32%	+7.68%

Volatility

GLL vs. FNGD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ProShares UltraShort Gold (GLL) is 15.88%, while MicroSectors FANG+™ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (FNGD) has a volatility of 32.28%. This indicates that GLL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FNGD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GLL	FNGD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	15.88%	32.28%	-16.40%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	46.76%	52.78%	-6.02%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	54.33%	65.18%	-10.85%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	36.36%	89.62%	-53.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	32.42%	91.28%	-58.86%

GLL vs. FNGD - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

GLL vs. FNGD - Dividend Comparison

Neither GLL nor FNGD has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLL and FNGD in my portfolio?

GLL and FNGD have a correlation of 0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GLL or FNGD?

FNGD has higher volatility (32.28%) compared to GLL (15.88%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLL dropped -99.24% vs FNGD's -100.00%.

Which ETF is better, GLL or FNGD?

On 5-year performance, GLL leads with -29.04% vs -63.34% for FNGD. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, GLL has been the lower-risk option at 15.88%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GLL or FNGD?

Over the 5-year period, GLL has performed better with a -29.04% return vs -63.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLL or FNGD?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between GLL and FNGD?

GLL is categorized as Leveraged Commodities, while FNGD is Leveraged Equities. GLL tracks Bloomberg Gold (-200%), while FNGD tracks NYSE FANG+ Index (-300%). They also come from different issuers: ProShares and BMO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GLL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.78 vs -0.84), 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.