QQH vs. FNGS

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

QQH (HCM Defender 100 Index ETF) and FNGS (MicroSectors FANG+ ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - QQH is a Technology Equities fund tracking the HCM Defender 100 Index, while FNGS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the NYSE FANG+ Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, QQH returned 12.07%/yr vs 18.21%/yr for FNGS. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QQH charges 1.14%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for FNGS.

Performance

QQH vs. FNGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in HCM Defender 100 Index ETF (QQH) 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, QQH achieves a 6.74% return, which is significantly higher than FNGS's 5.66% return.

QQH

• 1D: -4.16%
• 1M: -2.80%
• YTD: 6.74%
• 6M: 4.72%
• 1Y: 28.70%
• 3Y*: 21.78%
• 5Y*: 12.07%
• 10Y*: —

FNGS

• 1D: -2.36%
• 1M: -3.57%
• YTD: 5.66%
• 6M: 4.04%
• 1Y: 17.25%
• 3Y*: 29.30%
• 5Y*: 18.21%
• 10Y*: —

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

QQH vs. FNGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
QQH HCM Defender 100 Index ETF	6.74%	15.66%	33.64%	48.05%	-39.60%	37.52%	41.71%	7.03%
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	5.66%	18.64%	51.99%	95.24%	-40.32%	16.96%	101.99%	10.10%

Correlation

The correlation between QQH and FNGS is 0.86, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.86
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.89
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 13, 2019	0.86

The correlation between QQH and FNGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

QQH vs. FNGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

QQH

QQH Risk / Return Rank: 35
QQH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
QQH Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
QQH Omega Ratio Rank: 35
QQH Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
QQH Martin Ratio Rank: 34

FNGS

FNGS Risk / Return Rank: 21
FNGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
FNGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
FNGS Omega Ratio Rank: 21
FNGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
FNGS Martin Ratio Rank: 19

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.

QQH vs. FNGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for HCM Defender 100 Index ETF (QQH) 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.

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.

	QQH	FNGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.25	0.77	+0.48
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.69	1.18	+0.51
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.15	+0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.78	0.76	+1.03
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.73	2.12	+2.61

QQH vs. FNGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QQH Sharpe Ratio is 1.25, which is higher than the FNGS Sharpe Ratio of 0.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QQH 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.

Drawdowns

QQH vs. FNGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QQH drawdown since its inception was -41.87%, smaller than the maximum FNGS drawdown of -48.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QQH and FNGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	QQH	FNGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-41.87%	-48.98%	+7.11%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.18%	-22.93%	+6.75%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.84%	-26.77%	+1.93%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-41.87%	-48.98%	+7.11%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.53%	-10.58%	+3.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.87%	-10.84%	-2.03%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.08%	8.14%	-2.06%

Volatility

QQH vs. FNGS - Volatility Comparison

HCM Defender 100 Index ETF (QQH) has a higher volatility of 11.82% compared to MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) at 10.97%. This indicates that QQH's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FNGS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QQH	FNGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.82%	10.97%	+0.85%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.82%	18.01%	-0.19%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.13%	22.63%	+0.50%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.02%	30.25%	-8.23%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.00%	31.24%	-6.24%

QQH vs. FNGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

QQH has a 1.14% expense ratio, which is higher than FNGS's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

QQH vs. FNGS - Dividend Comparison

QQH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.20%, while FNGS has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QQH HCM Defender 100 Index ETF	0.20%	0.21%	0.24%	0.27%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.21%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QQH and FNGS in my portfolio?

QQH and FNGS have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QQH or FNGS?

QQH has higher volatility (11.82%) compared to FNGS (10.97%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QQH dropped -41.87% vs FNGS's -48.98%.

Which ETF is better, QQH or FNGS?

On 5-year performance, FNGS leads with 18.21% vs 12.07% for QQH. On fees, FNGS is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, FNGS has been the lower-risk option at 10.97%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QQH or FNGS?

Over the 5-year period, FNGS has performed better with a 18.21% return vs 12.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QQH or FNGS?

FNGS is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 1.14% for QQH.

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

QQH has the higher dividend yield at 0.20%, compared with 0.00% for FNGS.

What is the main difference between QQH and FNGS?

QQH is categorized as Technology Equities, while FNGS is Large Cap Growth Equities. QQH tracks HCM Defender 100 Index, while FNGS tracks NYSE FANG+ Index. They also come from different issuers: Howard Capital Management and BMO. Their fees differ too: 1.14% for QQH and 0.58% for FNGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QQH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.25 vs 0.77), 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.