NRGD vs. FUTG
NRGD (MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN) and FUTG (Leverage Shares 2X Long FUTU Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. NRGD is passively managed, while FUTG is actively managed. At a 0.24 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. NRGD charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for FUTG.
Performance
NRGD vs. FUTG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, NRGD achieves a -70.71% return, which is significantly higher than FUTG's -75.53% return.
NRGD
- 1D
- -5.59%
- 1M
- -6.21%
- YTD
- -70.71%
- 6M
- -67.28%
- 1Y
- -80.85%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
FUTG
- 1D
- -11.10%
- 1M
- -70.24%
- YTD
- -75.53%
- 6M
- -77.00%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
NRGD vs. FUTG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
NRGD MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN | -70.71% | -9.79% |
FUTG Leverage Shares 2X Long FUTU Daily ETF | -75.53% | -0.80% |
Correlation
The correlation between NRGD and FUTG is 0.24, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 15, 2025 | 0.24 |
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
NRGD vs. FUTG — Risk / Return Rank
NRGD
FUTG
NRGD vs. FUTG - 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 Leverage Shares 2X Long FUTU Daily ETF (FUTG). 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.
| NRGD | FUTG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.74 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.98 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.53 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| NRGD | FUTG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -1.09 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.81 | -0.66 | -0.15 |
Drawdowns
NRGD vs. FUTG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum NRGD drawdown since its inception was -89.64%, roughly equal to the maximum FUTG drawdown of -86.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NRGD and FUTG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| NRGD | FUTG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -89.64% | -86.19% | -3.45% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -82.88% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -89.24% | -84.29% | -4.95% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -58.88% | -40.35% | -18.53% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 52.87% | — | — |
Volatility
NRGD vs. FUTG - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| NRGD | FUTG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 29.27% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 58.52% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 74.26% | 136.01% | -61.75% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 88.83% | 136.01% | -47.18% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 88.83% | 136.01% | -47.18% |
NRGD vs. FUTG - Expense Ratio Comparison
NRGD has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than FUTG's 0.75% expense ratio.
Dividends
NRGD vs. FUTG - Dividend Comparison
Neither NRGD nor FUTG has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
NRGD and FUTG have a correlation of 0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, FUTG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
FUTG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for NRGD.
NRGD and FUTG have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
They also come from different issuers: BMO and Leverage Shares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for NRGD and 0.75% for FUTG.
Find the right allocation for NRGD and FUTG
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