QTJL vs. FNGU

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

QTJL (Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - July) and FNGU (MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs) are both Leveraged Equities funds. QTJL is actively managed, while FNGU is passively managed. Over the past year, QTJL returned 20.52% vs 64.67% for FNGU. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QTJL charges 0.79%/yr vs 2.60%/yr for FNGU.

Performance

QTJL vs. FNGU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - July (QTJL) 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, QTJL achieves a 7.15% return, which is significantly lower than FNGU's 36.18% return.

QTJL

• 1D: -0.01%
• 1M: 1.20%
• YTD: 7.15%
• 6M: 7.91%
• 1Y: 20.52%
• 3Y*: 19.20%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FNGU

• 1D: -3.75%
• 1M: 33.96%
• YTD: 36.18%
• 6M: 16.22%
• 1Y: 64.67%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QTJL vs. FNGU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
QTJL Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - July	7.15%	16.05%
FNGU MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs	36.18%	4.24%

Correlation

The correlation between QTJL and FNGU is 0.77, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.77
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 21, 2025	0.81

The correlation between QTJL and FNGU has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.77 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

QTJL vs. FNGU - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QTJL	FNGU
Technology	54.2%	60.6%
Communication Services	15.5%	29.8%
Consumer Cyclical	12.2%	9.6%
Consumer Defensive	7.6%	-
Healthcare	4.2%	-
Industrials	2.8%	-
Utilities	1.4%	-
Basic Materials	1.2%	-
Energy	0.6%	-
Financial Services	0.2%	-
Real Estate	0.1%	-

Return for Risk

QTJL vs. FNGU — Risk / Return Rank

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

QTJL

QTJL Risk / Return Rank: 68
QTJL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
QTJL Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
QTJL Omega Ratio Rank: 70
QTJL Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
QTJL Martin Ratio Rank: 81

FNGU

FNGU Risk / Return Rank: 27
FNGU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 30
FNGU Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
FNGU Omega Ratio Rank: 30
FNGU Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
FNGU Martin Ratio Rank: 21

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.

QTJL vs. FNGU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - July (QTJL) 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.

	QTJL	FNGU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.06	1.13	+0.93
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.93	1.69	+1.23
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.21	+0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.08	1.09	+1.99
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.23	2.64	+13.59
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QTJL vs. FNGU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QTJL Sharpe Ratio is 2.06, which is higher than the FNGU Sharpe Ratio of 1.13. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QTJL 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	QTJL	FNGU	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.06	1.13	+0.93
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.52	0.40	+0.12

Drawdowns

QTJL vs. FNGU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QTJL drawdown since its inception was -33.40%, smaller than the maximum FNGU drawdown of -60.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QTJL and FNGU.

Drawdown Indicators

	QTJL	FNGU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.40%	-60.84%	+27.44%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.68%	-59.55%	+52.87%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.43%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.01%	-4.84%	+4.83%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.94%	-22.06%	+14.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.27%	24.57%	-23.30%

Volatility

QTJL vs. FNGU - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator Growth Accelerated Plus ETF - July (QTJL) is 0.31%, while MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs (FNGU) has a volatility of 16.40%. This indicates that QTJL 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

	QTJL	FNGU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.31%	16.40%	-16.09%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.61%	44.77%	-37.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.01%	57.50%	-47.49%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.42%	78.60%	-58.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.42%	78.60%	-58.18%

QTJL vs. FNGU - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

QTJL vs. FNGU - Dividend Comparison

Neither QTJL nor FNGU has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QTJL and FNGU in my portfolio?

QTJL and FNGU have a correlation of 0.77, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QTJL or FNGU?

FNGU has higher volatility (16.40%) compared to QTJL (0.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QTJL dropped -33.40% vs FNGU's -60.84%.

Which ETF is better, QTJL or FNGU?

On 1-year performance, FNGU leads with 64.67% vs 20.52% for QTJL. On fees, QTJL is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, QTJL has been the lower-risk option at 0.31%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QTJL or FNGU?

Over the 1-year period, FNGU has performed better with a 64.67% return vs 20.52%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QTJL or FNGU?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between QTJL and FNGU?

They also come from different issuers: Innovator and Bank of Montreal. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for QTJL and 2.60% for FNGU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QTJL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.06 vs 1.13), 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.