IGM vs. FNGS

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

IGM (iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF) and FNGS (MicroSectors FANG+ ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - IGM is a Technology Equities fund tracking the S&P North American Expanded Technology Sector Index, while FNGS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the NYSE FANG+ Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IGM returned 20.09%/yr vs 19.76%/yr for FNGS. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IGM charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for FNGS.

Performance

IGM vs. FNGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF (IGM) 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, IGM achieves a 23.42% return, which is significantly higher than FNGS's 6.79% return.

IGM

• 1D: 0.69%
• 1M: 3.04%
• YTD: 23.42%
• 6M: 23.24%
• 1Y: 48.57%
• 3Y*: 35.37%
• 5Y*: 20.09%
• 10Y*: 24.57%

FNGS

• 1D: -0.94%
• 1M: -3.20%
• YTD: 6.79%
• 6M: 4.25%
• 1Y: 17.02%
• 3Y*: 29.80%
• 5Y*: 19.76%
• 10Y*: —

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

IGM vs. FNGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
IGM iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF	23.42%	26.76%	36.99%	60.68%	-35.83%	25.72%	45.11%	5.59%
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	6.79%	18.64%	51.99%	95.24%	-40.32%	16.96%	101.99%	10.10%

Correlation

The correlation between IGM and FNGS is 0.88, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.88
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.89
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 13, 2019	0.90

The correlation between IGM and FNGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

IGM vs. FNGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IGM	FNGS
Technology	82.8%	59.9%
Communication Services	16.8%	28.8%
Financial Services	0.2%	10.0%
Industrials	0.2%	-
Energy	0.1%	-
Consumer Cyclical	0.1%	11.3%
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

IGM vs. FNGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

IGM

IGM Risk / Return Rank: 71
IGM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
IGM Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
IGM Omega Ratio Rank: 73
IGM Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
IGM Martin Ratio Rank: 64

FNGS

FNGS Risk / Return Rank: 23
FNGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
FNGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
FNGS Omega Ratio Rank: 24
FNGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
FNGS Martin Ratio Rank: 20

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.

IGM vs. FNGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF (IGM) 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.

	IGM	FNGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.22	0.79	+1.43
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.78	1.19	+1.60
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.15	+0.22
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.97	0.75	+2.22
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.06	2.12	+7.94

IGM vs. FNGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IGM Sharpe Ratio is 2.22, which is higher than the FNGS Sharpe Ratio of 0.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IGM 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

IGM vs. FNGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IGM drawdown since its inception was -65.59%, which is greater than FNGS's maximum drawdown of -48.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IGM and FNGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	IGM	FNGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-65.59%	-48.98%	-16.61%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.44%	-22.93%	+6.49%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.39%	-26.77%	+0.38%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-40.68%	-48.98%	+8.30%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-40.68%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.80%	-9.63%	+2.83%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-15.22%	-10.85%	-4.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.84%	8.05%	-3.21%

Volatility

IGM vs. FNGS - Volatility Comparison

iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF (IGM) has a higher volatility of 10.03% compared to MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) at 8.74%. This indicates that IGM'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

	IGM	FNGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.03%	8.74%	+1.29%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.11%	17.19%	+0.92%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.98%	21.65%	+0.33%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.91%	30.10%	-4.19%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.66%	31.17%	-6.51%

IGM vs. FNGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

IGM has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than FNGS's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

IGM vs. FNGS - Dividend Comparison

IGM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.13%, while FNGS has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
IGM iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF	0.13%	0.17%	0.22%	0.33%	0.66%	0.16%	0.32%	0.50%	0.57%	0.57%	0.90%	0.79%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IGM and FNGS in my portfolio?

IGM and FNGS have a correlation of 0.88, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IGM or FNGS?

IGM has higher volatility (10.03%) compared to FNGS (8.74%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IGM dropped -65.59% vs FNGS's -48.98%.

Which ETF is better, IGM or FNGS?

On 5-year performance, IGM leads with 20.09% vs 19.76% for FNGS. On fees, IGM is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, FNGS has been the lower-risk option at 8.74%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IGM or FNGS?

Over the 5-year period, IGM has performed better with a 20.09% return vs 19.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IGM or FNGS?

IGM is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for FNGS.

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

IGM has the higher dividend yield at 0.13%, compared with 0.00% for FNGS.

What is the main difference between IGM and FNGS?

IGM is categorized as Technology Equities, while FNGS is Large Cap Growth Equities. IGM tracks S&P North American Expanded Technology Sector Index, while FNGS tracks NYSE FANG+ Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for IGM and 0.58% for FNGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IGM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.22 vs 0.79), 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.