NRGD vs. FNGU

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

NRGD (MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN) and FNGU (MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs) are both Leveraged Equities funds from BMO - NRGD tracks the Solactive MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index (-300%) while FNGU tracks the NYSE FANG+ Index (Gross Total Return) (300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past year, NRGD returned -79.81% vs 22.73% for FNGU. Their 0.06 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. NRGD charges 0.95%/yr vs 2.60%/yr for FNGU.

Performance

NRGD vs. FNGU - 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+ 3X Leveraged ETNs (FNGU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NRGD achieves a -75.22% return, which is significantly lower than FNGU's 14.13% return.

NRGD

• 1D: 5.43%
• 1M: -35.72%
• 6M: -66.58%
• YTD: -75.22%
• 1Y: -79.81%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -71.78%

FNGU

• 1D: 8.14%
• 1M: 8.83%
• 6M: 28.02%
• YTD: 14.13%
• 1Y: 22.73%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 11.83%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
FNGU MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs	$100.73M	$114.41M	$153.47M
NRGD MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN	$625.37K	$556.49K	$704.40K

NRGD vs. FNGU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
NRGD MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN	-75.22%	-35.40%
FNGU MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs	14.13%	3.02%

Correlation

The correlation between NRGD and FNGU is 0.21, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.21
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 20, 2025	0.06

The correlation between NRGD and FNGU shifts across timeframes, from 0.06 (all time) to 0.21 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

NRGD vs. FNGU - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NRGD	FNGU
Energy	100.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	29.8%
Consumer Cyclical	-	9.6%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	60.6%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

NRGD vs. FNGU — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

NRGD

NRGD Risk / Return Rank: 1
NRGD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1
NRGD Sortino Ratio Rank: 0
NRGD Omega Ratio Rank: 0
NRGD Calmar Ratio Rank: 1
NRGD Martin Ratio Rank: 1

FNGU

FNGU Risk / Return Rank: 21
FNGU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 19
FNGU Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
FNGU Omega Ratio Rank: 24
FNGU Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
FNGU Martin Ratio Rank: 17

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

NRGD vs. FNGU - 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+ 3X Leveraged ETNs (FNGU). 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	FNGU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-1.05	0.35	-1.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-2.30	0.92	-3.22
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.76	1.11	-0.35
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.97	0.38	-1.36
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.49	0.85	-2.34

NRGD vs. FNGU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NRGD Sharpe Ratio is -1.05, which is lower than the FNGU Sharpe Ratio of 0.35. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NRGD and FNGU, 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. FNGU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NRGD drawdown since its inception was -91.37%, which is greater than FNGU's maximum drawdown of -61.30%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NRGD and FNGU.

Drawdown Indicators

	NRGD	FNGU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-91.37%	-61.30%	-30.07%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-82.12%	-59.55%	-22.57%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-90.90%	-20.25%	-70.65%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-62.05%	-22.60%	-39.45%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	53.63%	26.71%	+26.92%

Volatility

NRGD vs. FNGU - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (NRGD) has a higher volatility of 24.28% compared to MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs (FNGU) at 19.48%. This indicates that NRGD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FNGU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NRGD	FNGU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	24.28%	19.48%	+4.80%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	60.77%	54.28%	+6.49%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	76.09%	65.96%	+10.13%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	87.90%	79.84%	+8.06%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	87.90%	79.84%	+8.06%

NRGD vs. FNGU - Expense Ratio Comparison

NRGD has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is lower than FNGU's 2.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

NRGD vs. FNGU - Dividend Comparison

Neither NRGD nor FNGU has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NRGD and FNGU in my portfolio?

NRGD and FNGU have a correlation of 0.21, 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 FNGU?

NRGD has higher volatility (24.28%) compared to FNGU (19.48%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NRGD dropped -91.37% vs FNGU's -61.30%.

Which ETF is better, NRGD or FNGU?

On 1-year performance, FNGU leads with 22.73% vs -79.81% for NRGD. On fees, NRGD is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, FNGU has been the lower-risk option at 19.48%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NRGD or FNGU?

Over the 1-year period, FNGU has performed better with a 22.73% return vs -79.81%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NRGD or FNGU?

NRGD is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 2.60% for FNGU.

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

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

What is the main difference between NRGD and FNGU?

NRGD tracks Solactive MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index (-300%), while FNGU tracks NYSE FANG+ Index (Gross Total Return) (300%). Their fees differ too: 0.95% for NRGD and 2.60% for FNGU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FNGU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.35 vs -1.05), 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.