NRGU vs. CRMG

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

NRGU (MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN) and CRMG (Leverage Shares 2X Long CRM Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. NRGU is passively managed, while CRMG is actively managed. Over the past year, NRGU returned 171.19% vs -60.55% for CRMG. At a 0.11 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. NRGU charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for CRMG.

Performance

NRGU vs. CRMG - 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 Leverage Shares 2X Long CRM Daily ETF (CRMG). 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 CRMG's -56.09% return.

NRGU

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

CRMG

• 1D: -1.95%
• 1M: -1.95%
• YTD: -56.09%
• 6M: -50.25%
• 1Y: -60.55%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NRGU vs. CRMG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
NRGU MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN	125.94%	36.44%
CRMG Leverage Shares 2X Long CRM Daily ETF	-56.09%	3.69%

Correlation

The correlation between NRGU and CRMG is 0.06, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.06
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 7, 2025	0.11

Return for Risk

NRGU vs. CRMG — 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

CRMG

CRMG Risk / Return Rank: 2
CRMG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3
CRMG Sortino Ratio Rank: 3
CRMG Omega Ratio Rank: 3
CRMG Calmar Ratio Rank: 2
CRMG Martin Ratio Rank: 1

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. CRMG - 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 Leverage Shares 2X Long CRM Daily ETF (CRMG). 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	CRMG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.31	-0.81	+3.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.55	-1.14	+3.70
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	0.86	+0.46
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.31	-0.86	+5.17
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.74	-1.47	+12.21
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. CRMG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NRGU Sharpe Ratio is 2.31, which is higher than the CRMG Sharpe Ratio of -0.81. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NRGU and CRMG, 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	CRMG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.31	-0.81	+3.11
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.43	-0.65	+1.08

Drawdowns

NRGU vs. CRMG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NRGU drawdown since its inception was -57.50%, smaller than the maximum CRMG drawdown of -74.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NRGU and CRMG.

Drawdown Indicators

	NRGU	CRMG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-57.50%	-74.38%	+16.88%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-39.95%	-70.91%	+30.96%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-22.07%	-67.87%	+45.80%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-25.41%	-37.81%	+12.40%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	16.01%	41.08%	-25.07%

Volatility

NRGU vs. CRMG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN (NRGU) is 31.62%, while Leverage Shares 2X Long CRM Daily ETF (CRMG) has a volatility of 34.03%. This indicates that NRGU experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CRMG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NRGU	CRMG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	31.62%	34.03%	-2.41%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	61.19%	63.87%	-2.68%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	75.02%	75.31%	-0.29%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	89.03%	75.62%	+13.41%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	89.03%	75.62%	+13.41%

NRGU vs. CRMG - Expense Ratio Comparison

NRGU has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than CRMG's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

NRGU vs. CRMG - Dividend Comparison

Neither NRGU nor CRMG has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NRGU and CRMG in my portfolio?

NRGU and CRMG have a correlation of 0.06, 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 CRMG?

CRMG has higher volatility (34.03%) compared to NRGU (31.62%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NRGU dropped -57.50% vs CRMG's -74.38%.

Which ETF is better, NRGU or CRMG?

On 1-year performance, NRGU leads with 171.19% vs -60.55% for CRMG. On fees, CRMG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, NRGU has been the lower-risk option at 31.62%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NRGU or CRMG?

Over the 1-year period, NRGU has performed better with a 171.19% return vs -60.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NRGU or CRMG?

CRMG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for NRGU.

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

NRGU and CRMG have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between NRGU and CRMG?

They also come from different issuers: BMO and Leverage Shares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for NRGU and 0.75% for CRMG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NRGU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.31 vs -0.81), 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.