NRGD vs. FNGS

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

NRGD (MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN) and FNGS (MicroSectors FANG+ ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - NRGD is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Solactive MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index (-300%), while FNGS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the NYSE FANG+ Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, NRGD returned -72.26% vs 17.25% for FNGS. At a 0.03 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. NRGD charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for FNGS.

Performance

NRGD vs. FNGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (NRGD) 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, NRGD achieves a -63.27% return, which is significantly lower than FNGS's 5.66% return.

NRGD

• 1D: -2.47%
• 1M: 16.95%
• YTD: -63.27%
• 6M: -63.90%
• 1Y: -72.26%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FNGS

• 1D: -2.36%
• 1M: -3.57%
• YTD: 5.66%
• 6M: 4.04%
• 1Y: 17.25%
• 3Y*: 29.30%
• 5Y*: 18.21%
• 10Y*: —

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

NRGD vs. FNGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
NRGD MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN	-63.27%	-35.40%
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	5.66%	12.22%

Correlation

The correlation between NRGD and FNGS is 0.18, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.18
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 20, 2025	0.03

The correlation between NRGD and FNGS shifts across timeframes, from 0.03 (all time) to 0.18 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

NRGD vs. FNGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NRGD	FNGS
Energy	100.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	26.0%
Consumer Cyclical	-	10.6%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	10.0%
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	63.4%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

NRGD vs. FNGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

NRGD

NRGD Risk / Return Rank: 1
NRGD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1
NRGD Sortino Ratio Rank: 1
NRGD Omega Ratio Rank: 1
NRGD Calmar Ratio Rank: 1
NRGD Martin Ratio Rank: 1

FNGS

FNGS Risk / Return Rank: 21
FNGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
FNGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
FNGS Omega Ratio Rank: 21
FNGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
FNGS Martin Ratio Rank: 19

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.

NRGD vs. FNGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (NRGD) 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.

	NRGD	FNGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.97	0.77	-1.73
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.82	1.18	-3.00
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.81	1.15	-0.34
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.90	0.76	-1.66
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.45	2.12	-3.57

NRGD vs. FNGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NRGD Sharpe Ratio is -0.97, which is lower than the FNGS Sharpe Ratio of 0.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NRGD 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

NRGD vs. FNGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NRGD drawdown since its inception was -89.64%, which is greater than FNGS's maximum drawdown of -48.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NRGD and FNGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	NRGD	FNGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-89.64%	-48.98%	-40.66%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-80.03%	-22.93%	-57.10%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-26.77%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-48.98%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-86.51%	-10.58%	-75.93%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-59.82%	-10.84%	-48.98%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	49.93%	8.14%	+41.79%

Volatility

NRGD vs. FNGS - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (NRGD) has a higher volatility of 24.74% compared to MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) at 10.97%. This indicates that NRGD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FNGS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NRGD	FNGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	24.74%	10.97%	+13.77%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	59.20%	18.01%	+41.19%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	75.34%	22.63%	+52.71%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	88.73%	30.25%	+58.48%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	88.73%	31.24%	+57.49%

NRGD vs. FNGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

NRGD has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than FNGS's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

NRGD vs. FNGS - Dividend Comparison

Neither NRGD nor FNGS has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NRGD and FNGS in my portfolio?

NRGD and FNGS have a correlation of 0.18, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NRGD or FNGS?

NRGD has higher volatility (24.74%) compared to FNGS (10.97%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NRGD dropped -89.64% vs FNGS's -48.98%.

Which ETF is better, NRGD or FNGS?

On 1-year performance, FNGS leads with 17.25% vs -72.26% for NRGD. On fees, FNGS is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, FNGS has been the lower-risk option at 10.97%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NRGD or FNGS?

Over the 1-year period, FNGS has performed better with a 17.25% return vs -72.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NRGD or FNGS?

FNGS is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for NRGD.

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

NRGD and FNGS have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between NRGD and FNGS?

NRGD is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while FNGS is Large Cap Growth Equities. NRGD tracks Solactive MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index (-300%), while FNGS tracks NYSE FANG+ Index. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for NRGD and 0.58% for FNGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FNGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.77 vs -0.97), 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.