QTAP vs. FNGU

Last updated Aug 6, 2026

QTAP (Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - April) and FNGU (MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs) are both Leveraged Equities funds. QTAP is actively managed, while FNGU is passively managed. Over the past year, QTAP returned 21.61% vs 33.67% for FNGU. Their 0.78 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. QTAP charges 0.79%/yr vs 2.60%/yr for FNGU.

Performance

QTAP vs. FNGU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - April (QTAP) and MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs (FNGU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QTAP achieves a 15.59% return, which is significantly lower than FNGU's 26.84% return.

QTAP

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 1.24%
• 6M: 15.02%
• YTD: 15.59%
• 1Y: 21.61%
• 3Y*: 20.08%
• 5Y*: 12.49%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.79%

FNGU

• 1D: -1.90%
• 1M: 16.98%
• 6M: 60.76%
• YTD: 26.84%
• 1Y: 33.67%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 20.20%

*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)
FNGU MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs	$140.41M	$127.04M	$156.24M
QTAP Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - April	$241.79K	$219.11K	$201.05K

QTAP vs. FNGU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
QTAP Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - April	15.59%	15.87%
FNGU MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs	26.84%	3.02%

Correlation

The correlation between QTAP and FNGU is 0.73, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.73
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 20, 2025	0.78

The correlation between QTAP and FNGU has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.73 to 0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

QTAP vs. FNGU - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QTAP	FNGU
Technology	50.7%	60.6%
Communication Services	15.8%	29.8%
Consumer Cyclical	12.5%	9.6%
Consumer Defensive	8.7%	-
Healthcare	5.1%	-
Industrials	3.3%	-
Utilities	1.6%	-
Basic Materials	1.3%	-
Energy	0.7%	-
Financial Services	0.2%	-
Real Estate	0.1%	-

Return for Risk

QTAP vs. FNGU — Risk / Return Rank

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

QTAP

QTAP Risk / Return Rank: 97
QTAP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
QTAP Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
QTAP Omega Ratio Rank: 97
QTAP Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
QTAP Martin Ratio Rank: 97

FNGU

FNGU Risk / Return Rank: 22
FNGU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
FNGU Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
FNGU Omega Ratio Rank: 26
FNGU Calmar Ratio Rank: 19
FNGU Martin Ratio Rank: 18

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.

QTAP vs. FNGU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - April (QTAP) and MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs (FNGU). 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.

	QTAP	FNGU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.29	0.51	+2.79
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.33	1.12	+4.21
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.78	1.14	+0.65
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.72	0.57	+7.15
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	37.02	1.26	+35.75

QTAP vs. FNGU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QTAP Sharpe Ratio is 3.29, which is higher than the FNGU Sharpe Ratio of 0.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QTAP and FNGU, 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

QTAP vs. FNGU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QTAP drawdown since its inception was -29.44%, smaller than the maximum FNGU drawdown of -61.30%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QTAP and FNGU.

Drawdown Indicators

	QTAP	FNGU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.44%	-61.30%	+31.86%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.81%	-59.55%	+56.74%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.03%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.44%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-11.37%	+11.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.90%	-22.53%	+17.63%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.59%	26.72%	-26.13%

Volatility

QTAP vs. FNGU - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - April (QTAP) is 2.79%, while MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs (FNGU) has a volatility of 22.95%. This indicates that QTAP experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FNGU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QTAP	FNGU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.79%	22.95%	-20.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.78%	55.47%	-49.69%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.60%	66.95%	-60.35%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.94%	80.38%	-61.44%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.55%	80.38%	-61.83%

QTAP vs. FNGU - Expense Ratio Comparison

QTAP has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than FNGU's 2.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

QTAP vs. FNGU - Dividend Comparison

Neither QTAP nor FNGU has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QTAP and FNGU in my portfolio?

QTAP and FNGU have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QTAP or FNGU?

FNGU has higher volatility (22.95%) compared to QTAP (2.79%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QTAP dropped -29.44% vs FNGU's -61.30%.

Which ETF is better, QTAP or FNGU?

On 1-year performance, FNGU leads with 33.67% vs 21.61% for QTAP. On fees, QTAP is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, QTAP has been the lower-risk option at 2.79%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QTAP or FNGU?

Over the 1-year period, FNGU has performed better with a 33.67% return vs 21.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QTAP or FNGU?

QTAP is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 2.60% for FNGU.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QTAP or FNGU?

QTAP and FNGU have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between QTAP and FNGU?

They also come from different issuers: Innovator and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for QTAP and 2.60% for FNGU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QTAP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.29 vs 0.51), 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.