MTUL vs. NRGU

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

MTUL (ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Momentum Factor TR ETN) and NRGU (MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - MTUL is a Momentum fund tracking the MSCI USA Momentum Index, while NRGU is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Solactive MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index (-300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past year, MTUL returned 90.13% vs 87.62% for NRGU. At a 0.02 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

MTUL vs. NRGU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Momentum Factor TR ETN (MTUL) and MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN (NRGU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with MTUL having a 72.94% return and NRGU slightly higher at 74.97%.

MTUL

• 1D: 4.03%
• 1M: 13.20%
• YTD: 72.94%
• 6M: 64.43%
• 1Y: 90.13%
• 3Y*: 61.94%
• 5Y*: 21.53%
• 10Y*: —

NRGU

• 1D: 2.72%
• 1M: -13.53%
• YTD: 74.97%
• 6M: 78.13%
• 1Y: 87.62%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MTUL vs. NRGU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
MTUL ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Momentum Factor TR ETN	72.94%	6.70%
NRGU MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN	74.97%	-30.00%

Correlation

The correlation between MTUL and NRGU is -0.13, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.13
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 20, 2025	0.02

The correlation between MTUL and NRGU shifts across timeframes, from -0.13 (1 year) to 0.02 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

MTUL vs. NRGU — Risk / Return Rank

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

MTUL

MTUL Risk / Return Rank: 71
MTUL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
MTUL Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
MTUL Omega Ratio Rank: 63
MTUL Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
MTUL Martin Ratio Rank: 84

NRGU

NRGU Risk / Return Rank: 38
NRGU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
NRGU Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
NRGU Omega Ratio Rank: 36
NRGU Calmar Ratio Rank: 47
NRGU Martin Ratio Rank: 36

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.

MTUL vs. NRGU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Momentum Factor TR ETN (MTUL) and MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN (NRGU). 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.

	MTUL	NRGU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.91	1.16	+0.75
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.44	1.76	+0.68
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.22	+0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.80	2.06	+1.73
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.88	4.94	+9.94

MTUL vs. NRGU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MTUL Sharpe Ratio is 1.91, which is higher than the NRGU Sharpe Ratio of 1.16. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MTUL and NRGU, 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

MTUL vs. NRGU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MTUL drawdown since its inception was -56.83%, roughly equal to the maximum NRGU drawdown of -57.50%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MTUL and NRGU.

Drawdown Indicators

	MTUL	NRGU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-56.83%	-57.50%	+0.67%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-23.86%	-42.71%	+18.85%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-39.15%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-56.83%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.12%	-39.65%	+36.53%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-22.45%	-25.68%	+3.23%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.08%	17.80%	-11.72%

Volatility

MTUL vs. NRGU - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Momentum Factor TR ETN (MTUL) is 19.45%, while MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN (NRGU) has a volatility of 25.61%. This indicates that MTUL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NRGU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MTUL	NRGU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	19.45%	25.61%	-6.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	40.40%	62.83%	-22.43%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	47.43%	75.96%	-28.53%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	43.52%	89.05%	-45.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	44.11%	89.05%	-44.94%

MTUL vs. NRGU - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both MTUL and NRGU have an expense ratio of 0.95%.

Dividends

MTUL vs. NRGU - Dividend Comparison

Neither MTUL nor NRGU has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MTUL and NRGU in my portfolio?

MTUL and NRGU have a correlation of -0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MTUL or NRGU?

NRGU has higher volatility (25.61%) compared to MTUL (19.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MTUL dropped -56.83% vs NRGU's -57.50%.

Which ETF is better, MTUL or NRGU?

On 1-year performance, MTUL leads with 90.13% vs 87.62% for NRGU. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, MTUL has been the lower-risk option at 19.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MTUL or NRGU?

Over the 1-year period, MTUL has performed better with a 90.13% return vs 87.62%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MTUL or NRGU?

MTUL and NRGU have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MTUL or NRGU?

MTUL and NRGU have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between MTUL and NRGU?

MTUL is categorized as Momentum, while NRGU is Leveraged Equities. MTUL tracks MSCI USA Momentum Index, while NRGU tracks Solactive MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index (-300%). They also come from different issuers: UBS and BMO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MTUL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.91 vs 1.16), 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.