NQ=F vs. FNGS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

NQ=F (E-Mini Nasdaq 100 Futures) is an asset, while FNGS (MicroSectors FANG+ ETN) is Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the NYSE FANG+ Index. Over the past 5 years, NQ=F returned 17.24%/yr vs 22.01%/yr for FNGS. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure.

Performance

NQ=F vs. FNGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in E-Mini Nasdaq 100 Futures (NQ=F) 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, NQ=F achieves a 19.79% return, which is significantly higher than FNGS's 16.26% return.

NQ=F

• 1D: -0.71%
• 1M: 9.79%
• YTD: 19.79%
• 6M: 18.85%
• 1Y: 40.49%
• 3Y*: 27.90%
• 5Y*: 17.24%
• 10Y*: 21.06%

FNGS

• 1D: -0.98%
• 1M: 11.24%
• YTD: 16.26%
• 6M: 10.77%
• 1Y: 29.78%
• 3Y*: 35.29%
• 5Y*: 22.01%
• 10Y*: —

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

NQ=F vs. FNGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
NQ=F E-Mini Nasdaq 100 Futures	19.79%	19.93%	24.69%	54.45%	-32.46%	26.66%	47.22%	5.89%
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	16.26%	18.64%	51.99%	95.24%	-40.32%	16.96%	101.99%	10.91%

Correlation

The correlation between NQ=F and FNGS is 0.79, 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	0.79
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.88
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 14, 2019	0.89

The correlation between NQ=F and FNGS shifts across timeframes, from 0.79 (1 year) to 0.89 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

NQ=F vs. FNGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

NQ=F

NQ=F Risk / Return Rank: 90
NQ=F Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
NQ=F Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
NQ=F Omega Ratio Rank: 89
NQ=F Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
NQ=F Martin Ratio Rank: 91

FNGS

FNGS Risk / Return Rank: 34
FNGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
FNGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
FNGS Omega Ratio Rank: 38
FNGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
FNGS Martin Ratio Rank: 27

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.

NQ=F vs. FNGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for E-Mini Nasdaq 100 Futures (NQ=F) 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.

	NQ=F	FNGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.49	1.46	+1.03
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.32	2.03	+1.29
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.26	+0.18
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.27	1.30	+1.96
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	11.92	3.77	+8.15
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NQ=F vs. FNGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NQ=F Sharpe Ratio is 2.49, which is higher than the FNGS Sharpe Ratio of 1.46. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NQ=F 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	NQ=F	FNGS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.49	1.46	+1.03
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.77	0.74	+0.03
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.94	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.97	1.06	-0.09

Drawdowns

NQ=F vs. FNGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NQ=F drawdown since its inception was -35.28%, smaller than the maximum FNGS drawdown of -48.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NQ=F and FNGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	NQ=F	FNGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.28%	-48.98%	+13.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.89%	-22.93%	+11.04%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.05%	-26.77%	+3.72%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.28%	-48.98%	+13.70%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.28%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.71%	-1.61%	+0.90%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.11%	-10.87%	+5.76%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.31%	7.92%	-4.61%

Volatility

NQ=F vs. FNGS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for E-Mini Nasdaq 100 Futures (NQ=F) is 4.36%, while MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) has a volatility of 5.64%. This indicates that NQ=F 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

	NQ=F	FNGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.36%	5.64%	-1.28%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.88%	15.68%	-3.80%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.61%	20.49%	-4.88%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.45%	29.96%	-7.51%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.29%	31.12%	-8.83%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NQ=F and FNGS in my portfolio?

NQ=F and FNGS have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NQ=F or FNGS?

FNGS has higher volatility (5.64%) compared to NQ=F (4.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NQ=F dropped -35.28% vs FNGS's -48.98%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NQ=F currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.49 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.