NRGU vs. BBSB

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

NRGU (MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN) and BBSB (JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Treasury Bond 1-3 Year ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - NRGU is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Solactive MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index (-300%), while BBSB is a Government Bonds fund tracking the ICE U.S. Treasury 1-3 Year Bond Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, NRGU returned 171.19% vs 3.32% for BBSB. At a correlation of -0.30, they often move in opposite directions. NRGU charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for BBSB.

Performance

NRGU vs. BBSB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN (NRGU) and JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Treasury Bond 1-3 Year ETF (BBSB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NRGU achieves a 125.94% return, which is significantly higher than BBSB's 0.55% return.

NRGU

• 1D: -1.47%
• 1M: -6.46%
• YTD: 125.94%
• 6M: 93.16%
• 1Y: 171.19%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BBSB

• 1D: 0.07%
• 1M: 0.13%
• YTD: 0.55%
• 6M: 0.88%
• 1Y: 3.32%
• 3Y*: 4.15%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NRGU vs. BBSB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
NRGU MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN	125.94%	-33.00%
BBSB JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Treasury Bond 1-3 Year ETF	0.55%	4.53%

Correlation

The correlation between NRGU and BBSB is -0.27, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.27
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 21, 2025	-0.30

NRGU vs. BBSB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NRGU	BBSB
Energy	100.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	99.7%
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

NRGU vs. BBSB — Risk / Return Rank

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

NRGU

NRGU Risk / Return Rank: 64
NRGU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
NRGU Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
NRGU Omega Ratio Rank: 53
NRGU Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
NRGU Martin Ratio Rank: 61

BBSB

BBSB Risk / Return Rank: 84
BBSB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
BBSB Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
BBSB Omega Ratio Rank: 88
BBSB Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
BBSB Martin Ratio Rank: 82

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.

NRGU vs. BBSB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN (NRGU) and JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Treasury Bond 1-3 Year ETF (BBSB). 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.

	NRGU	BBSB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.31	2.64	-0.33
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.55	4.47	-1.91
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.54	-0.22
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.31	3.89	+0.42
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.74	16.07	-5.34
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NRGU vs. BBSB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NRGU Sharpe Ratio is 2.31, which is comparable to the BBSB Sharpe Ratio of 2.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NRGU and BBSB, 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

	NRGU	BBSB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.31	2.64	-0.33
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.43	2.36	-1.93

Drawdowns

NRGU vs. BBSB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NRGU drawdown since its inception was -57.50%, which is greater than BBSB's maximum drawdown of -1.57%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NRGU and BBSB.

Drawdown Indicators

	NRGU	BBSB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-57.50%	-1.57%	-55.93%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-39.95%	-0.86%	-39.09%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-0.96%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-22.07%	-0.18%	-21.89%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-25.41%	-0.31%	-25.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	16.01%	0.21%	+15.80%

Volatility

NRGU vs. BBSB - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN (NRGU) has a higher volatility of 31.62% compared to JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Treasury Bond 1-3 Year ETF (BBSB) at 0.36%. This indicates that NRGU's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BBSB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NRGU	BBSB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	31.62%	0.36%	+31.26%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	61.19%	0.85%	+60.34%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	75.02%	1.27%	+73.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	89.03%	1.66%	+87.37%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	89.03%	1.66%	+87.37%

NRGU vs. BBSB - Expense Ratio Comparison

NRGU has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than BBSB's 0.04% expense ratio.

Dividends

NRGU vs. BBSB - Dividend Comparison

NRGU has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BBSB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.81%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BBSB JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Treasury Bond 1-3 Year ETF	3.81%	3.69%	4.84%	3.50%
NRGU MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NRGU and BBSB in my portfolio?

NRGU and BBSB have a correlation of -0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NRGU or BBSB?

NRGU has higher volatility (31.62%) compared to BBSB (0.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NRGU dropped -57.50% vs BBSB's -1.57%.

Which ETF is better, NRGU or BBSB?

On 1-year performance, NRGU leads with 171.19% vs 3.32% for BBSB. On fees, BBSB is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, BBSB has been the lower-risk option at 0.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NRGU or BBSB?

Over the 1-year period, NRGU has performed better with a 171.19% return vs 3.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NRGU or BBSB?

BBSB is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for NRGU.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NRGU or BBSB?

BBSB has the higher dividend yield at 3.81%, compared with 0.00% for NRGU.

What is the main difference between NRGU and BBSB?

NRGU is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while BBSB is Government Bonds. NRGU tracks Solactive MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index (-300%), while BBSB tracks ICE U.S. Treasury 1-3 Year Bond Index. They also come from different issuers: BMO and JPMorgan. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for NRGU and 0.04% for BBSB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BBSB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.64 vs 2.31), 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.