NRGU vs. TNA

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

NRGU (MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN) and TNA (Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares) are both Leveraged Equities funds - NRGU tracks the Solactive MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index (-300%) while TNA tracks the Russell 2000 Index (300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past year, NRGU returned 107.84% vs 117.40% for TNA. At a 0.18 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. NRGU charges 0.95%/yr vs 1.14%/yr for TNA.

Performance

NRGU vs. TNA - 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 Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares (TNA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NRGU achieves a 110.06% return, which is significantly higher than TNA's 53.14% return.

NRGU

• 1D: 2.51%
• 1M: 2.05%
• YTD: 110.06%
• 6M: 87.26%
• 1Y: 107.84%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

TNA

• 1D: 2.53%
• 1M: 8.84%
• YTD: 53.14%
• 6M: 40.13%
• 1Y: 117.40%
• 3Y*: 25.74%
• 5Y*: -6.50%
• 10Y*: 8.78%

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

NRGU vs. TNA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
NRGU MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN	110.06%	-30.00%
TNA Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares	53.14%	4.63%

Correlation

The correlation between NRGU and TNA is 0.02, 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	0.02
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 20, 2025	0.18

The correlation between NRGU and TNA shifts across timeframes, from 0.02 (1 year) to 0.18 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

NRGU vs. TNA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NRGU	TNA
Energy	100.0%	6.2%
Basic Materials	-	4.8%
Communication Services	-	2.5%
Consumer Cyclical	-	8.4%
Consumer Defensive	-	2.4%
Financial Services	-	15.9%
Healthcare	-	16.5%
Industrials	-	17.5%
Real Estate	-	6.2%
Technology	-	16.9%
Utilities	-	2.9%

Return for Risk

NRGU vs. TNA — Risk / Return Rank

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

NRGU

NRGU Risk / Return Rank: 48
NRGU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
NRGU Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
NRGU Omega Ratio Rank: 43
NRGU Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
NRGU Martin Ratio Rank: 45

TNA

TNA Risk / Return Rank: 68
TNA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
TNA Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
TNA Omega Ratio Rank: 54
TNA Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
TNA Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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. TNA - 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 Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares (TNA). 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	TNA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.44	2.01	-0.57
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.98	2.48	-0.50
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.29	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.71	3.63	-0.91
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.55	11.92	-5.37

NRGU vs. TNA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NRGU Sharpe Ratio is 1.44, which is comparable to the TNA Sharpe Ratio of 2.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NRGU and TNA, 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. TNA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NRGU drawdown since its inception was -57.50%, smaller than the maximum TNA drawdown of -88.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NRGU and TNA.

Drawdown Indicators

	NRGU	TNA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-57.50%	-88.09%	+30.59%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-39.95%	-32.53%	-7.42%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-65.78%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-82.36%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-88.09%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-27.55%	-35.23%	+7.68%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-25.35%	-33.92%	+8.57%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	16.54%	9.91%	+6.63%

Volatility

NRGU vs. TNA - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN (NRGU) has a higher volatility of 27.12% compared to Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares (TNA) at 21.54%. This indicates that NRGU's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than TNA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NRGU	TNA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	27.12%	21.54%	+5.58%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	62.47%	42.61%	+19.86%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	75.30%	58.70%	+16.60%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	88.96%	67.57%	+21.39%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	88.96%	68.54%	+20.42%

NRGU vs. TNA - Expense Ratio Comparison

NRGU has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is lower than TNA's 1.14% expense ratio.

Dividends

NRGU vs. TNA - Dividend Comparison

NRGU has not paid dividends to shareholders, while TNA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.39%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
NRGU MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
TNA Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares	0.39%	0.78%	0.93%	1.27%	0.31%	0.06%	0.03%	0.44%	0.36%	0.15%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NRGU and TNA in my portfolio?

NRGU and TNA have a correlation of 0.02, 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 TNA?

NRGU has higher volatility (27.12%) compared to TNA (21.54%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NRGU dropped -57.50% vs TNA's -88.09%.

Which ETF is better, NRGU or TNA?

On 1-year performance, TNA leads with 117.40% vs 107.84% for NRGU. On fees, NRGU is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, TNA has been the lower-risk option at 21.54%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NRGU or TNA?

Over the 1-year period, TNA has performed better with a 117.40% return vs 107.84%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NRGU or TNA?

NRGU is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.14% for TNA.

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

TNA has the higher dividend yield at 0.39%, compared with 0.00% for NRGU.

What is the main difference between NRGU and TNA?

NRGU tracks Solactive MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index (-300%), while TNA tracks Russell 2000 Index (300%). They also come from different issuers: BMO and Direxion. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for NRGU and 1.14% for TNA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TNA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.01 vs 1.44), 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.