SAA vs. FNGO

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

SAA (ProShares Ultra SmallCap600) and FNGO (MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN) are both Leveraged Equities funds - SAA tracks the S&P SmallCap 600 Index (200%) while FNGO tracks the NYSE FANG+ Index (+200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, SAA returned 2.49%/yr vs 22.32%/yr for FNGO. A 0.51 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

SAA vs. FNGO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Ultra SmallCap600 (SAA) and MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN (FNGO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SAA achieves a 36.86% return, which is significantly higher than FNGO's 6.64% return.

SAA

• 1D: -0.55%
• 1M: 8.20%
• YTD: 36.86%
• 6M: 31.50%
• 1Y: 66.49%
• 3Y*: 21.67%
• 5Y*: 2.49%
• 10Y*: 12.61%

FNGO

• 1D: -4.61%
• 1M: -6.82%
• YTD: 6.64%
• 6M: 2.85%
• 1Y: 25.87%
• 3Y*: 48.86%
• 5Y*: 22.32%
• 10Y*: —

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

SAA vs. FNGO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
SAA ProShares Ultra SmallCap600	36.86%	0.29%	5.60%	21.32%	-36.17%	51.77%	-1.79%	42.39%	-36.08%
FNGO MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN	6.64%	25.49%	101.65%	240.10%	-71.55%	28.38%	238.00%	79.61%	-39.85%

Correlation

The correlation between SAA and FNGO is 0.38, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.38
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.44
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 2, 2018	0.51

The correlation between SAA and FNGO shifts across timeframes, from 0.38 (1 year) to 0.55 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

SAA vs. FNGO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	SAA	FNGO
Technology	17.1%	63.4%
Financial Services	16.5%	10.0%
Industrials	15.2%	-
Consumer Cyclical	13.1%	10.6%
Healthcare	11.0%	-
Real Estate	7.6%	-
Energy	5.4%	-
Basic Materials	5.0%	-
Communication Services	3.7%	26.0%
Consumer Defensive	3.6%	-
Utilities	1.9%	-

Return for Risk

SAA vs. FNGO — Risk / Return Rank

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

SAA

SAA Risk / Return Rank: 63
SAA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
SAA Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
SAA Omega Ratio Rank: 51
SAA Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
SAA Martin Ratio Rank: 69

FNGO

FNGO Risk / Return Rank: 18
FNGO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 18
FNGO Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
FNGO Omega Ratio Rank: 19
FNGO Calmar Ratio Rank: 16
FNGO Martin Ratio Rank: 16

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.

SAA vs. FNGO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra SmallCap600 (SAA) and MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN (FNGO). 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.

	SAA	FNGO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.85	0.59	+1.26
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.55	1.07	+1.48
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.13	+0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.67	0.61	+3.06
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.94	1.56	+10.38

SAA vs. FNGO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SAA Sharpe Ratio is 1.85, which is higher than the FNGO Sharpe Ratio of 0.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SAA and FNGO, 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

SAA vs. FNGO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SAA drawdown since its inception was -87.39%, which is greater than FNGO's maximum drawdown of -78.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SAA and FNGO.

Drawdown Indicators

	SAA	FNGO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-87.39%	-78.39%	-9.00%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.21%	-42.73%	+24.52%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-50.84%	-47.64%	-3.20%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-55.37%	-78.39%	+23.02%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-74.54%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.69%	-20.15%	+19.46%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-27.35%	-23.84%	-3.51%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.59%	16.61%	-11.02%

Volatility

SAA vs. FNGO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ProShares Ultra SmallCap600 (SAA) is 9.60%, while MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN (FNGO) has a volatility of 21.56%. This indicates that SAA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FNGO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SAA	FNGO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.60%	21.56%	-11.96%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.43%	35.31%	-10.88%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	36.09%	43.90%	-7.81%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	43.53%	60.80%	-17.27%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	46.15%	61.71%	-15.56%

SAA vs. FNGO - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both SAA and FNGO have an expense ratio of 0.95%.

Dividends

SAA vs. FNGO - Dividend Comparison

SAA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.74%, while FNGO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
FNGO MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
SAA ProShares Ultra SmallCap600	0.74%	1.05%	1.36%	0.88%	0.46%	0.00%	0.03%	0.35%	0.27%	0.00%	0.14%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SAA and FNGO in my portfolio?

SAA and FNGO have a correlation of 0.38, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, SAA or FNGO?

FNGO has higher volatility (21.56%) compared to SAA (9.60%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SAA dropped -87.39% vs FNGO's -78.39%.

Which ETF is better, SAA or FNGO?

On 5-year performance, FNGO leads with 22.32% vs 2.49% for SAA. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, SAA has been the lower-risk option at 9.60%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SAA or FNGO?

Over the 5-year period, FNGO has performed better with a 22.32% return vs 2.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SAA or FNGO?

SAA and FNGO have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, SAA or FNGO?

SAA has the higher dividend yield at 0.74%, compared with 0.00% for FNGO.

What is the main difference between SAA and FNGO?

SAA tracks S&P SmallCap 600 Index (200%), while FNGO tracks NYSE FANG+ Index (+200%). They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Bank of Montreal.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SAA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.85 vs 0.59), 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.