IWY vs. FNGS

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

IWY (iShares Russell Top 200 Growth ETF) and FNGS (MicroSectors FANG+ ETN) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds - IWY tracks the Russell Top 200 Growth Index while FNGS tracks the NYSE FANG+ Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IWY returned 15.15%/yr vs 19.76%/yr for FNGS. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IWY charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for FNGS.

Performance

IWY vs. FNGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell Top 200 Growth ETF (IWY) 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, IWY achieves a 2.99% return, which is significantly lower than FNGS's 6.79% return.

IWY

• 1D: -0.00%
• 1M: -2.39%
• YTD: 2.99%
• 6M: 3.75%
• 1Y: 19.83%
• 3Y*: 23.03%
• 5Y*: 15.15%
• 10Y*: 19.24%

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)

IWY vs. FNGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
IWY iShares Russell Top 200 Growth ETF	2.99%	18.19%	34.89%	46.49%	-29.91%	31.05%	39.01%	5.92%
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	6.79%	18.64%	51.99%	95.24%	-40.32%	16.96%	101.99%	10.10%

Correlation

The correlation between IWY and FNGS is 0.87, 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	0.87
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.91
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 13, 2019	0.89

The correlation between IWY and FNGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWY vs. FNGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IWY	FNGS
Technology	54.9%	59.9%
Communication Services	13.9%	28.8%
Consumer Cyclical	11.4%	11.3%
Healthcare	6.6%	-
Financial Services	5.6%	10.0%
Industrials	4.0%	-
Consumer Defensive	3.0%	-
Utilities	1.1%	-
Real Estate	0.3%	-
Basic Materials	0.3%	-
Energy	0.0%	-

Return for Risk

IWY vs. FNGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWY

IWY Risk / Return Rank: 35
IWY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
IWY Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
IWY Omega Ratio Rank: 38
IWY Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
IWY Martin Ratio Rank: 30

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.

IWY vs. FNGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell Top 200 Growth ETF (IWY) 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.

	IWY	FNGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.24	0.79	+0.45
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.73	1.19	+0.55
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.15	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.20	0.75	+0.45
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.85	2.12	+1.73

IWY vs. FNGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWY Sharpe Ratio is 1.24, which is higher than the FNGS Sharpe Ratio of 0.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWY 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

IWY vs. FNGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWY drawdown since its inception was -32.68%, smaller than the maximum FNGS drawdown of -48.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWY and FNGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWY	FNGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.68%	-48.98%	+16.30%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.63%	-22.93%	+6.30%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.22%	-26.77%	+3.55%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-32.68%	-48.98%	+16.30%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-32.68%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.68%	-9.63%	+3.95%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.75%	-10.85%	+6.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.16%	8.05%	-2.89%

Volatility

IWY vs. FNGS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Russell Top 200 Growth ETF (IWY) is 5.30%, while MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) has a volatility of 8.74%. This indicates that IWY experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FNGS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWY	FNGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.30%	8.74%	-3.44%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.38%	17.19%	-4.81%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.01%	21.65%	-5.64%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.54%	30.10%	-8.56%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.01%	31.17%	-10.16%

IWY vs. FNGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWY has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than FNGS's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWY vs. FNGS - Dividend Comparison

IWY's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.34%, 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%
IWY iShares Russell Top 200 Growth ETF	0.34%	0.36%	0.42%	0.68%	0.88%	0.50%	0.71%	1.06%	1.32%	1.26%	1.51%	1.58%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWY and FNGS in my portfolio?

IWY and FNGS have a correlation of 0.87, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IWY or FNGS?

FNGS has higher volatility (8.74%) compared to IWY (5.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWY dropped -32.68% vs FNGS's -48.98%.

Which ETF is better, IWY or FNGS?

On 5-year performance, FNGS leads with 19.76% vs 15.15% for IWY. On fees, IWY is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, IWY has been the lower-risk option at 5.30%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWY or FNGS?

Over the 5-year period, FNGS has performed better with a 19.76% return vs 15.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWY or FNGS?

IWY is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for FNGS.

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

IWY has the higher dividend yield at 0.34%, compared with 0.00% for FNGS.

What is the main difference between IWY and FNGS?

IWY tracks Russell Top 200 Growth Index, while FNGS tracks NYSE FANG+ Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for IWY and 0.58% for FNGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWY currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.24 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.