TRFM vs. FNGS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

TRFM (AAM Transformers ETF) and FNGS (MicroSectors FANG+ ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - TRFM is a Technology Equities fund tracking the Pence Transformers Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while FNGS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the NYSE FANG+ Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, TRFM returned 31.63%/yr vs 35.29%/yr for FNGS. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. TRFM charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for FNGS.

Performance

TRFM vs. FNGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AAM Transformers ETF (TRFM) 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, TRFM achieves a 30.30% return, which is significantly higher than FNGS's 16.26% return.

TRFM

• 1D: -1.23%
• 1M: 12.40%
• YTD: 30.30%
• 6M: 29.25%
• 1Y: 53.69%
• 3Y*: 31.63%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FNGS

• 1D: -0.98%
• 1M: 11.24%
• YTD: 16.26%
• 6M: 10.77%
• 1Y: 29.78%
• 3Y*: 35.29%
• 5Y*: 22.01%
• 10Y*: —

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

TRFM vs. FNGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
TRFM AAM Transformers ETF	30.30%	25.76%	19.96%	44.71%	-7.38%
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	16.26%	18.64%	51.99%	95.24%	-11.04%

Correlation

The correlation between TRFM and FNGS is 0.73, 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	0.73
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 13, 2022	0.82

The correlation between TRFM and FNGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.73 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

TRFM vs. FNGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TRFM	FNGS
Technology	53.3%	59.9%
Consumer Cyclical	17.7%	11.3%
Communication Services	12.3%	28.8%
Industrials	7.2%	-
Energy	3.5%	-
Financial Services	2.8%	10.0%
Utilities	1.7%	-
Basic Materials	1.2%	-
Healthcare	0.2%	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

TRFM vs. FNGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

TRFM

TRFM Risk / Return Rank: 71
TRFM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
TRFM Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
TRFM Omega Ratio Rank: 64
TRFM Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
TRFM Martin Ratio Rank: 74

FNGS

FNGS Risk / Return Rank: 34
FNGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
FNGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
FNGS Omega Ratio Rank: 38
FNGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
FNGS Martin Ratio Rank: 27

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.

TRFM vs. FNGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AAM Transformers ETF (TRFM) 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.

	TRFM	FNGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.41	1.46	+0.94
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.04	2.03	+1.00
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.26	+0.13
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.15	1.30	+2.85
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	14.09	3.77	+10.32
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

TRFM vs. FNGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TRFM Sharpe Ratio is 2.41, which is higher than the FNGS Sharpe Ratio of 1.46. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TRFM 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

	TRFM	FNGS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.41	1.46	+0.94
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.74	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.05	1.06	0.00

Drawdowns

TRFM vs. FNGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TRFM drawdown since its inception was -28.40%, smaller than the maximum FNGS drawdown of -48.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TRFM and FNGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	TRFM	FNGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.40%	-48.98%	+20.58%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.99%	-22.93%	+9.94%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-28.40%	-26.77%	-1.63%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-48.98%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.23%	-1.61%	+0.38%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.61%	-10.87%	+4.26%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.82%	7.92%	-4.10%

Volatility

TRFM vs. FNGS - Volatility Comparison

AAM Transformers ETF (TRFM) has a higher volatility of 7.34% compared to MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) at 5.64%. This indicates that TRFM'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

	TRFM	FNGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.34%	5.64%	+1.70%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.46%	15.68%	+1.78%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.47%	20.49%	+1.98%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.94%	29.96%	-3.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.94%	31.12%	-4.18%

TRFM vs. FNGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

TRFM has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than FNGS's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

TRFM vs. FNGS - Dividend Comparison

TRFM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.13%, while FNGS has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	0.00%	0.00%
TRFM AAM Transformers ETF	0.13%	0.17%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TRFM and FNGS in my portfolio?

TRFM and FNGS 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, TRFM or FNGS?

TRFM has higher volatility (7.34%) compared to FNGS (5.64%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TRFM dropped -28.40% vs FNGS's -48.98%.

Which ETF is better, TRFM or FNGS?

On 3-year performance, FNGS leads with 35.29% vs 31.63% for TRFM. On fees, TRFM is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, FNGS has been the lower-risk option at 5.64%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TRFM or FNGS?

Over the 3-year period, FNGS has performed better with a 35.29% return vs 31.63%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TRFM or FNGS?

TRFM is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for FNGS.

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

TRFM has the higher dividend yield at 0.13%, compared with 0.00% for FNGS.

What is the main difference between TRFM and FNGS?

TRFM is categorized as Technology Equities, while FNGS is Large Cap Growth Equities. TRFM tracks Pence Transformers Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while FNGS tracks NYSE FANG+ Index. They also come from different issuers: AAM and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for TRFM and 0.58% for FNGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TRFM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.41 vs 1.46), 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.