NRGU vs. FNGO

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

NRGU (MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN) and FNGO (MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN) are both Leveraged Equities funds from BMO - NRGU tracks the Solactive MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index while FNGO tracks the NYSE FANG+ Index (+200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past year, NRGU returned 166.43% vs 21.80% for FNGO. Their -0.04 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

NRGU vs. FNGO - 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 MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN (FNGO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NRGU achieves a 157.14% return, which is significantly higher than FNGO's 12.30% return.

NRGU

• 1D: 2.86%
• 1M: 51.26%
• 6M: 91.25%
• YTD: 157.14%
• 1Y: 166.43%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 50.40%

FNGO

• 1D: 3.64%
• 1M: 1.33%
• 6M: 20.30%
• YTD: 12.30%
• 1Y: 21.80%
• 3Y*: 47.42%
• 5Y*: 23.80%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 37.68%

*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)
FNGO MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN	$408.43K	$444.96K	$770.86K
NRGU MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN	$4.57M	$4.13M	$3.95M

NRGU vs. FNGO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
NRGU MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN	157.14%	-30.00%
FNGO MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN	12.30%	14.62%

Correlation

The correlation between NRGU and FNGO is -0.18, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	-0.18
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 20, 2025	-0.04

The correlation between NRGU and FNGO shifts across timeframes, from -0.18 (1 year) to -0.04 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

NRGU vs. FNGO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NRGU	FNGO
Energy	100.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	30.0%
Consumer Cyclical	-	10.4%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	10.0%
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	59.6%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

NRGU vs. FNGO — Risk / Return Rank

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

NRGU

NRGU Risk / Return Rank: 75
NRGU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
NRGU Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
NRGU Omega Ratio Rank: 69
NRGU Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
NRGU Martin Ratio Rank: 63

FNGO

FNGO Risk / Return Rank: 19
FNGO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 19
FNGO Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
FNGO Omega Ratio Rank: 21
FNGO Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
FNGO 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.

NRGU vs. FNGO - 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 MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN (FNGO). 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.

	NRGU	FNGO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.92	0.36	+1.56
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.31	0.80	+1.51
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.09	+0.19
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.38	0.38	+3.00
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.59	0.92	+6.67

NRGU vs. FNGO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NRGU Sharpe Ratio is 1.92, which is higher than the FNGO Sharpe Ratio of 0.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NRGU and FNGO, 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

NRGU vs. FNGO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NRGU drawdown since its inception was -57.50%, smaller than the maximum FNGO drawdown of -78.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NRGU and FNGO.

Drawdown Indicators

	NRGU	FNGO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-57.50%	-78.39%	+20.89%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-43.89%	-42.73%	-1.16%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-47.64%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-78.39%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.31%	-15.91%	+4.60%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-25.74%	-23.75%	-1.99%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	19.55%	17.55%	+2.00%

Volatility

NRGU vs. FNGO - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN (NRGU) has a higher volatility of 22.83% compared to MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN (FNGO) at 12.24%. This indicates that NRGU's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FNGO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NRGU	FNGO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	22.83%	12.24%	+10.59%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	64.33%	36.19%	+28.14%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	77.39%	44.77%	+32.62%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	88.47%	60.86%	+27.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	88.47%	61.47%	+27.00%

NRGU vs. FNGO - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both NRGU and FNGO have an expense ratio of 0.95%.

Dividends

NRGU vs. FNGO - Dividend Comparison

Neither NRGU nor FNGO has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NRGU and FNGO in my portfolio?

NRGU and FNGO have a correlation of -0.18, 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 FNGO?

NRGU has higher volatility (22.83%) compared to FNGO (12.24%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NRGU dropped -57.50% vs FNGO's -78.39%.

Which ETF is better, NRGU or FNGO?

On 1-year performance, NRGU leads with 166.43% vs 21.80% for FNGO. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, FNGO has been the lower-risk option at 12.24%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NRGU or FNGO?

Over the 1-year period, NRGU has performed better with a 166.43% return vs 21.80%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NRGU or FNGO?

NRGU and FNGO have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.

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

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

What is the main difference between NRGU and FNGO?

NRGU tracks Solactive MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index, while FNGO tracks NYSE FANG+ Index (+200%).

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NRGU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.92 vs 0.36), 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.