LGH vs. FNGS
LGH (HCM Defender 500 Index ETF) and FNGS (MicroSectors FANG+ ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - LGH is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the HCM Defender 500 Index, while FNGS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the NYSE FANG+ Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, LGH returned 11.27%/yr vs 22.01%/yr for FNGS. A 0.76 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LGH charges 1.23%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for FNGS.
Performance
LGH vs. FNGS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LGH achieves a 4.82% return, which is significantly lower than FNGS's 16.26% return.
LGH
- 1D
- -0.92%
- 1M
- 7.14%
- YTD
- 4.82%
- 6M
- 4.52%
- 1Y
- 26.30%
- 3Y*
- 20.78%
- 5Y*
- 11.27%
- 10Y*
- —
FNGS
- 1D
- -0.98%
- 1M
- 11.24%
- YTD
- 16.26%
- 6M
- 10.77%
- 1Y
- 29.78%
- 3Y*
- 35.29%
- 5Y*
- 22.01%
- 10Y*
- —
LGH vs. FNGS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LGH HCM Defender 500 Index ETF | 4.82% | 19.47% | 27.00% | 24.19% | -27.37% | 39.92% | 18.51% | 5.04% |
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN | 16.26% | 18.64% | 51.99% | 95.24% | -40.32% | 16.96% | 101.99% | 10.91% |
Correlation
The correlation between LGH and FNGS is 0.76, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.76 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.81 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.78 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 14, 2019 | 0.76 |
The correlation between LGH and FNGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
LGH vs. FNGS — Risk / Return Rank
LGH
FNGS
LGH vs. FNGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for HCM Defender 500 Index ETF (LGH) 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.
| LGH | FNGS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.26 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.24 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.30 | 1.26 | +0.04 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.34 | 1.30 | +1.04 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.55 | 3.77 | +3.79 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| LGH | FNGS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.72 | 1.46 | +0.26 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.69 | 0.74 | -0.05 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.80 | 1.06 | -0.26 |
Drawdowns
LGH vs. FNGS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LGH drawdown since its inception was -29.60%, smaller than the maximum FNGS drawdown of -48.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LGH and FNGS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LGH | FNGS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -29.60% | -48.98% | +19.38% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.29% | -22.93% | +11.64% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -18.42% | -26.77% | +8.35% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -29.38% | -48.98% | +19.60% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.92% | -1.61% | +0.69% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -9.42% | -10.87% | +1.45% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.49% | 7.92% | -4.43% |
Volatility
LGH vs. FNGS - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for HCM Defender 500 Index ETF (LGH) is 4.07%, while MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) has a volatility of 5.64%. This indicates that LGH 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LGH | FNGS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.07% | 5.64% | -1.57% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.86% | 15.68% | -4.82% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.41% | 20.49% | -5.08% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.52% | 29.96% | -13.44% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 19.78% | 31.12% | -11.34% |
LGH vs. FNGS - Expense Ratio Comparison
LGH has a 1.23% expense ratio, which is higher than FNGS's 0.58% expense ratio.
Dividends
LGH vs. FNGS - Dividend Comparison
LGH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.37%, while FNGS has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
LGH HCM Defender 500 Index ETF | 0.37% | 0.38% | 0.40% | 0.63% | 0.61% | 0.14% | 0.23% | 0.01% |
Frequently Asked Questions
LGH and FNGS have a correlation of 0.76, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
FNGS has higher volatility (5.64%) compared to LGH (4.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LGH dropped -29.60% vs FNGS's -48.98%.
On 5-year performance, FNGS leads with 22.01% vs 11.27% for LGH. On fees, FNGS is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, LGH has been the lower-risk option at 4.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, FNGS has performed better with a 22.01% return vs 11.27%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
FNGS is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 1.23% for LGH.
LGH has the higher dividend yield at 0.37%, compared with 0.00% for FNGS.
LGH is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while FNGS is Large Cap Growth Equities. LGH tracks HCM Defender 500 Index, while FNGS tracks NYSE FANG+ Index. They also come from different issuers: Howard Capital Management and BMO. Their fees differ too: 1.23% for LGH and 0.58% for FNGS.
LGH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.72 vs 1.46), 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.
Find the right allocation for LGH and FNGS
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer