ILDR vs. FNGS

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

ILDR (First Trust Innovation Leaders ETF) and FNGS (MicroSectors FANG+ ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - ILDR is a Technology Equities fund actively managed by First Trust, while FNGS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the NYSE FANG+ Index. ILDR is actively managed, while FNGS is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ILDR returned 10.56%/yr vs 18.98%/yr for FNGS. Their correlation of 0.85 means they have usually moved in the same direction. ILDR charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for FNGS.

Performance

ILDR vs. FNGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Innovation Leaders ETF (ILDR) 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, ILDR achieves a 10.34% return, which is significantly higher than FNGS's 9.02% return.

ILDR

• 1D: 1.11%
• 1M: -4.81%
• 6M: 10.66%
• YTD: 10.34%
• 1Y: 22.56%
• 3Y*: 24.57%
• 5Y*: 10.56%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 11.99%

FNGS

• 1D: 1.63%
• 1M: 0.59%
• 6M: 12.42%
• YTD: 9.02%
• 1Y: 15.45%
• 3Y*: 28.64%
• 5Y*: 18.98%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 30.45%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	$1.57M	$1.92M	$2.40M
ILDR First Trust Innovation Leaders ETF	$1.72M	$2.15M	$1.99M

ILDR vs. FNGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
ILDR First Trust Innovation Leaders ETF	10.34%	29.22%	29.31%	39.34%	-34.95%	7.57%
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	9.02%	18.64%	51.99%	95.24%	-40.32%	13.09%

Correlation

The correlation between ILDR and FNGS is 0.82, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.82
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.83
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 26, 2021	0.85

The correlation between ILDR and FNGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

ILDR vs. FNGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ILDR	FNGS
Technology	37.8%	59.6%
Healthcare	13.4%	-
Industrials	13.4%	-
Utilities	7.3%	-
Communication Services	6.1%	30.0%
Consumer Cyclical	4.9%	10.4%
Financial Services	4.9%	10.0%
Basic Materials	1.2%	-
Energy	1.2%	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

ILDR vs. FNGS — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

ILDR

ILDR Risk / Return Rank: 33
ILDR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
ILDR Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
ILDR Omega Ratio Rank: 31
ILDR Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
ILDR Martin Ratio Rank: 34

FNGS

FNGS Risk / Return Rank: 22
FNGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
FNGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
FNGS Omega Ratio Rank: 23
FNGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
FNGS Martin Ratio Rank: 21

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

ILDR vs. FNGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Innovation Leaders ETF (ILDR) 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.

	ILDR	FNGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.81	0.52	+0.29
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.23	0.86	+0.37
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	1.10	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.12	0.51	+0.60
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.28	1.37	+1.92

ILDR vs. FNGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ILDR Sharpe Ratio is 0.81, which is higher than the FNGS Sharpe Ratio of 0.52. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ILDR 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

ILDR vs. FNGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ILDR drawdown since its inception was -44.61%, smaller than the maximum FNGS drawdown of -48.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ILDR and FNGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	ILDR	FNGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-44.61%	-48.98%	+4.37%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.70%	-22.93%	+5.23%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.43%	-26.77%	+0.34%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-44.61%	-48.98%	+4.37%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.21%	-7.74%	-2.47%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-14.71%	-10.80%	-3.91%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.01%	8.61%	-2.60%

Volatility

ILDR vs. FNGS - Volatility Comparison

First Trust Innovation Leaders ETF (ILDR) has a higher volatility of 8.29% compared to MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) at 5.87%. This indicates that ILDR'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

	ILDR	FNGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.29%	5.87%	+2.42%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.87%	18.36%	+1.51%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.43%	22.86%	+1.57%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.62%	30.29%	-3.67%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.27%	31.07%	-4.80%

ILDR vs. FNGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

ILDR has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than FNGS's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

ILDR vs. FNGS - Dividend Comparison

Neither ILDR nor FNGS has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ILDR First Trust Innovation Leaders ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.16%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ILDR and FNGS in my portfolio?

ILDR and FNGS have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ILDR or FNGS?

ILDR has higher volatility (8.29%) compared to FNGS (5.87%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ILDR dropped -44.61% vs FNGS's -48.98%.

Which ETF is better, ILDR or FNGS?

On 5-year performance, FNGS leads with 18.98% vs 10.56% for ILDR. On fees, FNGS is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, FNGS has been the lower-risk option at 5.87%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ILDR or FNGS?

Over the 5-year period, FNGS has performed better with a 18.98% return vs 10.56%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ILDR or FNGS?

FNGS is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for ILDR.

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

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

What is the main difference between ILDR and FNGS?

ILDR is categorized as Technology Equities, while FNGS is Large Cap Growth Equities. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for ILDR and 0.58% for FNGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ILDR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.81 vs 0.52), 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.