UCYB vs. FNGO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

UCYB (ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Cybersecurity) and FNGO (MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN) are both Leveraged Equities funds - UCYB tracks the Nasdaq CTA Cybersecurity Index (200%) while FNGO tracks the NYSE FANG+ Index (+200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, UCYB returned 18.13%/yr vs 29.29%/yr for FNGO. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. UCYB charges 0.97%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for FNGO.

Performance

UCYB vs. FNGO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Cybersecurity (UCYB) 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, UCYB achieves a 51.10% return, which is significantly higher than FNGO's 24.00% return.

UCYB

• 1D: -1.99%
• 1M: 61.03%
• YTD: 51.10%
• 6M: 38.20%
• 1Y: 37.94%
• 3Y*: 43.47%
• 5Y*: 18.13%
• 10Y*: —

FNGO

• 1D: -4.35%
• 1M: 15.34%
• YTD: 24.00%
• 6M: 12.20%
• 1Y: 47.17%
• 3Y*: 59.52%
• 5Y*: 29.29%
• 10Y*: —

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

UCYB vs. FNGO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
UCYB ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Cybersecurity	51.10%	9.41%	28.84%	68.85%	-55.15%	29.50%
FNGO MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN	24.00%	25.49%	101.65%	240.10%	-71.55%	14.03%

Correlation

The correlation between UCYB and FNGO is 0.63, 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	0.63
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.66
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.69
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 22, 2021	0.69

The correlation between UCYB and FNGO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.63 to 0.69 - a consistent structural relationship.

UCYB vs. FNGO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	UCYB	FNGO
Technology	95.1%	59.9%
Industrials	4.8%	-
Communication Services	0.1%	28.8%
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	11.3%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	10.0%
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

UCYB vs. FNGO — Risk / Return Rank

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

UCYB

UCYB Risk / Return Rank: 22
UCYB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
UCYB Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
UCYB Omega Ratio Rank: 25
UCYB Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
UCYB Martin Ratio Rank: 18

FNGO

FNGO Risk / Return Rank: 29
FNGO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
FNGO Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
FNGO Omega Ratio Rank: 32
FNGO Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
FNGO Martin Ratio Rank: 23

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.

UCYB vs. FNGO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Cybersecurity (UCYB) 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.

	UCYB	FNGO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.77	1.19	-0.42
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.32	1.73	-0.41
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.17	1.21	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.89	1.11	-0.22
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.97	2.92	-0.95
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

UCYB vs. FNGO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UCYB Sharpe Ratio is 0.77, which is lower than the FNGO Sharpe Ratio of 1.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UCYB 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	UCYB	FNGO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.77	1.19	-0.42
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.36	0.49	-0.12
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.30	0.65	-0.36

Drawdowns

UCYB vs. FNGO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UCYB drawdown since its inception was -62.69%, smaller than the maximum FNGO drawdown of -78.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UCYB and FNGO.

Drawdown Indicators

	UCYB	FNGO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.69%	-78.39%	+15.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-43.04%	-42.73%	-0.31%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-43.04%	-47.64%	+4.60%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-62.69%	-78.39%	+15.70%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.02%	-7.16%	-0.86%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-27.47%	-23.90%	-3.57%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	19.33%	16.22%	+3.11%

Volatility

UCYB vs. FNGO - Volatility Comparison

ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Cybersecurity (UCYB) has a higher volatility of 22.45% compared to MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN (FNGO) at 12.45%. This indicates that UCYB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FNGO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	UCYB	FNGO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	22.45%	12.45%	+10.00%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	42.18%	30.88%	+11.30%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	49.53%	39.80%	+9.73%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	49.95%	60.25%	-10.30%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	49.63%	61.54%	-11.91%

UCYB vs. FNGO - Expense Ratio Comparison

UCYB has a 0.97% expense ratio, which is higher than FNGO's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

UCYB vs. FNGO - Dividend Comparison

UCYB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.43%, while FNGO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FNGO MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
UCYB ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Cybersecurity	1.43%	1.90%	2.16%	0.56%	0.00%	0.91%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both UCYB and FNGO in my portfolio?

UCYB and FNGO have a correlation of 0.63, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, UCYB or FNGO?

UCYB has higher volatility (22.45%) compared to FNGO (12.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UCYB dropped -62.69% vs FNGO's -78.39%.

Which ETF is better, UCYB or FNGO?

On 5-year performance, FNGO leads with 29.29% vs 18.13% for UCYB. On fees, FNGO is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, FNGO has been the lower-risk option at 12.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, UCYB or FNGO?

Over the 5-year period, FNGO has performed better with a 29.29% return vs 18.13%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, UCYB or FNGO?

FNGO is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 0.97% for UCYB.

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

UCYB has the higher dividend yield at 1.43%, compared with 0.00% for FNGO.

What is the main difference between UCYB and FNGO?

UCYB tracks Nasdaq CTA Cybersecurity Index (200%), while FNGO tracks NYSE FANG+ Index (+200%). They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Bank of Montreal. Their fees differ too: 0.97% for UCYB and 0.95% for FNGO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FNGO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.19 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.