PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
MVV vs. FBGX
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

MVV vs. FBGX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Ultra Midcap 400 (MVV) and UBS AG FI Enhanced Large Cap Growth ETN (FBGX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period


MVV

1D
0.68%
1M
10.84%
YTD
29.43%
6M
26.21%
1Y
52.14%
3Y*
20.94%
5Y*
7.54%
10Y*
14.27%

FBGX

1D
1M
YTD
6M
1Y
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

MVV vs. FBGX - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
MVV
ProShares Ultra Midcap 400
29.43%3.48%17.75%22.51%-31.96%48.57%6.20%49.50%-25.44%30.81%
FBGX
UBS AG FI Enhanced Large Cap Growth ETN
0.00%0.00%35.73%83.74%-56.41%57.04%65.79%75.84%-16.58%64.01%

Correlation

The correlation between MVV and FBGX is 0.67, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.31

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.56

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.63

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 11, 2014

0.67

The correlation between MVV and FBGX shifts across timeframes, from 0.31 (3 years) to 0.67 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

MVV vs. FBGX - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
MVV
FBGX

Industrials

24.8%
0.0%

Technology

17.8%
0.0%

Financial Services

13.7%
0.0%

Consumer Cyclical

10.5%
0.0%

Healthcare

9.1%
0.0%

Real Estate

7.3%
0.0%

Energy

4.9%
0.0%

Basic Materials

4.8%
0.0%

Consumer Defensive

3.3%
0.0%

Utilities

2.9%
0.0%

Communication Services

1.0%
0.0%

Industrials

MVV
24.8%
FBGX
0.0%

Technology

MVV
17.8%
FBGX
0.0%

Financial Services

MVV
13.7%
FBGX
0.0%

Consumer Cyclical

MVV
10.5%
FBGX
0.0%

Healthcare

MVV
9.1%
FBGX
0.0%

Real Estate

MVV
7.3%
FBGX
0.0%

Energy

MVV
4.9%
FBGX
0.0%

Basic Materials

MVV
4.8%
FBGX
0.0%

Consumer Defensive

MVV
3.3%
FBGX
0.0%

Utilities

MVV
2.9%
FBGX
0.0%

Communication Services

MVV
1.0%
FBGX
0.0%

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

MVV vs. FBGX — Risk / Return Rank

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

MVV
MVV Risk / Return Rank: 5555
Overall Rank
MVV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5252
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MVV Sortino Ratio Rank: 5151
Sortino Ratio Rank
MVV Omega Ratio Rank: 4747
Omega Ratio Rank
MVV Calmar Ratio Rank: 6464
Calmar Ratio Rank
MVV Martin Ratio Rank: 6161
Martin Ratio Rank

FBGX

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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.

MVV vs. FBGX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra Midcap 400 (MVV) and UBS AG FI Enhanced Large Cap Growth ETN (FBGX). 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.


MVVFBGXDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.28

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.96

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.16

MVV vs. FBGX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

MVV vs. FBGX - Drawdown Comparison


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


MVVFBGXDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-85.54%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-17.68%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-44.80%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-45.53%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-69.19%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-20.52%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

5.15%

Volatility

MVV vs. FBGX - Volatility Comparison


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


MVVFBGXDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

9.97%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

23.40%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

31.79%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

39.75%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

42.41%

MVV vs. FBGX - Expense Ratio Comparison

MVV has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is lower than FBGX's 1.29% expense ratio.


Dividends

MVV vs. FBGX - Dividend Comparison

MVV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.66%, while FBGX has not paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FBGX
UBS AG FI Enhanced Large Cap Growth 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%
MVV
ProShares Ultra Midcap 400
0.66%0.77%0.39%0.77%0.93%0.16%0.29%0.62%0.62%0.21%0.43%0.17%

Frequently Asked Questions


MVV and FBGX have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, MVV is cheaper at 0.95% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

MVV is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.29% for FBGX.

MVV has the higher dividend yield at 0.66%, compared with 0.00% for FBGX.

MVV tracks S&P MidCap 400 Index (200%), while FBGX tracks Russell 1000 Growth Index (200%). They also come from different issuers: ProShares and UBS. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for MVV and 1.29% for FBGX.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for MVV and FBGX

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