PHYL vs. FNGS

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

PHYL (PGIM Active High Yield Bond ETF) and FNGS (MicroSectors FANG+ ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - PHYL is a High Yield Bonds fund actively managed by Prudential, while FNGS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the NYSE FANG+ Index. PHYL is actively managed, while FNGS is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, PHYL returned 4.04%/yr vs 21.41%/yr for FNGS. A 0.51 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PHYL charges 0.53%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for FNGS.

Performance

PHYL vs. FNGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PGIM Active High Yield Bond ETF (PHYL) and MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PHYL achieves a 1.53% return, which is significantly lower than FNGS's 13.45% return.

PHYL

• 1D: 0.17%
• 1M: 0.33%
• YTD: 1.53%
• 6M: 2.10%
• 1Y: 7.43%
• 3Y*: 9.20%
• 5Y*: 4.04%
• 10Y*: —

FNGS

• 1D: -2.42%
• 1M: 7.85%
• YTD: 13.45%
• 6M: 8.38%
• 1Y: 26.37%
• 3Y*: 33.92%
• 5Y*: 21.41%
• 10Y*: —

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

PHYL vs. FNGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
PHYL PGIM Active High Yield Bond ETF	1.53%	9.65%	8.45%	11.91%	-11.80%	6.20%	6.31%	2.91%
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	13.45%	18.64%	51.99%	95.24%	-40.32%	16.96%	101.99%	10.91%

Correlation

The correlation between PHYL and FNGS is 0.49, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.49
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.47
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.50
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 14, 2019	0.51

The correlation between PHYL and FNGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.47 to 0.51 - a consistent structural relationship.

PHYL vs. FNGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PHYL	FNGS
Energy	59.0%	-
Communication Services	41.1%	28.8%
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	11.3%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	10.0%
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	59.9%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

PHYL vs. FNGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

PHYL

PHYL Risk / Return Rank: 71
PHYL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
PHYL Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
PHYL Omega Ratio Rank: 79
PHYL Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
PHYL Martin Ratio Rank: 69

FNGS

FNGS Risk / Return Rank: 32
FNGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
FNGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
FNGS Omega Ratio Rank: 35
FNGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
FNGS Martin Ratio Rank: 25

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.

PHYL vs. FNGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM Active High Yield Bond ETF (PHYL) and MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS). 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.

	PHYL	FNGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.30	1.28	+1.01
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.40	1.81	+1.59
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	1.23	+0.24
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.79	1.16	+1.63
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.75	3.33	+9.42
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PHYL vs. FNGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PHYL Sharpe Ratio is 2.30, which is higher than the FNGS Sharpe Ratio of 1.28. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PHYL and FNGS, 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

	PHYL	FNGS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.30	1.28	+1.01
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.71	0.72	0.00
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.72	1.04	-0.32

Drawdowns

PHYL vs. FNGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PHYL drawdown since its inception was -22.07%, smaller than the maximum FNGS drawdown of -48.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PHYL and FNGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	PHYL	FNGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.07%	-48.98%	+26.91%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.68%	-22.93%	+20.25%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-4.53%	-26.77%	+22.24%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-16.11%	-48.98%	+32.87%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.13%	-3.99%	+3.86%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.06%	-10.86%	+7.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.58%	7.93%	-7.35%

Volatility

PHYL vs. FNGS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for PGIM Active High Yield Bond ETF (PHYL) is 1.09%, while MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) has a volatility of 6.36%. This indicates that PHYL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FNGS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PHYL	FNGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.09%	6.36%	-5.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.59%	15.88%	-13.29%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.25%	20.64%	-17.39%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.68%	29.97%	-24.29%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.66%	31.13%	-23.47%

PHYL vs. FNGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

PHYL has a 0.53% expense ratio, which is lower than FNGS's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

PHYL vs. FNGS - Dividend Comparison

PHYL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.99%, while FNGS has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PHYL PGIM Active High Yield Bond ETF	6.99%	7.05%	8.28%	7.62%	6.55%	6.13%	7.51%	7.31%	1.79%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PHYL and FNGS in my portfolio?

PHYL and FNGS have a correlation of 0.49, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PHYL or FNGS?

FNGS has higher volatility (6.36%) compared to PHYL (1.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PHYL dropped -22.07% vs FNGS's -48.98%.

Which ETF is better, PHYL or FNGS?

On 5-year performance, FNGS leads with 21.41% vs 4.04% for PHYL. On fees, PHYL is cheaper at 0.53% per year. On volatility, PHYL has been the lower-risk option at 1.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PHYL or FNGS?

Over the 5-year period, FNGS has performed better with a 21.41% return vs 4.04%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PHYL or FNGS?

PHYL is cheaper with a 0.53% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for FNGS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, PHYL or FNGS?

PHYL has the higher dividend yield at 6.99%, compared with 0.00% for FNGS.

What is the main difference between PHYL and FNGS?

PHYL is categorized as High Yield Bonds, while FNGS is Large Cap Growth Equities. They also come from different issuers: Prudential and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.53% for PHYL and 0.58% for FNGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PHYL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.30 vs 1.28), 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.