NRGD vs. XDSQ

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

NRGD (MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN) and XDSQ (Innovator US Equity Accelerated ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. NRGD is passively managed, while XDSQ is actively managed. Over the past year, NRGD returned -79.81% vs 15.96% for XDSQ. Their -0.10 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. NRGD charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for XDSQ.

Performance

NRGD vs. XDSQ - 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 Innovator US Equity Accelerated ETF (XDSQ). 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 XDSQ's 5.19% return.

NRGD

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

XDSQ

• 1D: 1.09%
• 1M: 2.27%
• 6M: 2.99%
• YTD: 5.19%
• 1Y: 15.96%
• 3Y*: 14.89%
• 5Y*: 9.63%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 10.64%

*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)
NRGD MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN	$625.37K	$556.49K	$704.40K
XDSQ Innovator US Equity Accelerated ETF	$815.75K	$1.12M	$552.04K

NRGD vs. XDSQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
NRGD MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN	-75.22%	-35.40%
XDSQ Innovator US Equity Accelerated ETF	5.19%	9.27%

Correlation

The correlation between NRGD and XDSQ is 0.12, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.12
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 20, 2025	-0.10

The correlation between NRGD and XDSQ shifts across timeframes, from -0.10 (all time) to 0.12 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

NRGD vs. XDSQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NRGD	XDSQ
Energy	100.0%	3.1%
Basic Materials	-	1.7%
Communication Services	-	10.7%
Consumer Cyclical	-	9.9%
Consumer Defensive	-	4.5%
Financial Services	-	10.9%
Healthcare	-	8.3%
Industrials	-	7.8%
Real Estate	-	1.8%
Technology	-	39.1%
Utilities	-	2.1%

Return for Risk

NRGD vs. XDSQ — 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

XDSQ

XDSQ Risk / Return Rank: 58
XDSQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
XDSQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
XDSQ Omega Ratio Rank: 68
XDSQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
XDSQ Martin Ratio Rank: 62

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. XDSQ - 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 Innovator US Equity Accelerated ETF (XDSQ). 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	XDSQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-1.05	1.47	-2.52
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-2.30	2.04	-4.35
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.76	1.30	-0.54
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.97	1.67	-2.64
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.49	7.88	-9.37

NRGD vs. XDSQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NRGD Sharpe Ratio is -1.05, which is lower than the XDSQ Sharpe Ratio of 1.47. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NRGD and XDSQ, 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. XDSQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NRGD drawdown since its inception was -91.37%, which is greater than XDSQ's maximum drawdown of -26.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NRGD and XDSQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	NRGD	XDSQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-91.37%	-26.06%	-65.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-82.12%	-9.60%	-72.52%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-19.15%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-26.06%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-90.90%	0.00%	-90.90%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-62.05%	-4.82%	-57.23%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	53.63%	2.03%	+51.60%

Volatility

NRGD vs. XDSQ - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (NRGD) has a higher volatility of 24.28% compared to Innovator US Equity Accelerated ETF (XDSQ) at 3.68%. This indicates that NRGD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XDSQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NRGD	XDSQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	24.28%	3.68%	+20.60%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	60.77%	8.20%	+52.57%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	76.09%	10.94%	+65.15%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	87.90%	15.31%	+72.59%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	87.90%	14.95%	+72.95%

NRGD vs. XDSQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

NRGD has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than XDSQ's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

NRGD vs. XDSQ - Dividend Comparison

Neither NRGD nor XDSQ has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NRGD and XDSQ in my portfolio?

NRGD and XDSQ have a correlation of 0.12, 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 XDSQ?

NRGD has higher volatility (24.28%) compared to XDSQ (3.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NRGD dropped -91.37% vs XDSQ's -26.06%.

Which ETF is better, NRGD or XDSQ?

On 1-year performance, XDSQ leads with 15.96% vs -79.81% for NRGD. On fees, XDSQ is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, XDSQ has been the lower-risk option at 3.68%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NRGD or XDSQ?

Over the 1-year period, XDSQ has performed better with a 15.96% 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 XDSQ?

XDSQ is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for NRGD.

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

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

What is the main difference between NRGD and XDSQ?

They also come from different issuers: BMO and Innovator. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for NRGD and 0.79% for XDSQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XDSQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.47 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.