UMDD vs. FNGU

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

UMDD (ProShares UltraPro MidCap400) and FNGU (MicroSectors FANG+™ Index 3X Leveraged ETN) are both Leveraged Equities funds - UMDD tracks the S&P MidCap 400 Index (300%) while FNGU tracks the NYSE FANG (TR) (300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past year, UMDD returned 65.82% vs 64.67% for FNGU. A 0.50 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

UMDD vs. FNGU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares UltraPro MidCap400 (UMDD) and MicroSectors FANG+™ Index 3X Leveraged ETN (FNGU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with UMDD having a 37.59% return and FNGU slightly lower at 36.18%.

UMDD

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: 10.87%
• YTD: 37.59%
• 6M: 37.25%
• 1Y: 65.82%
• 3Y*: 25.91%
• 5Y*: 2.33%
• 10Y*: 11.97%

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)

UMDD vs. FNGU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
UMDD ProShares UltraPro MidCap400	37.59%	-5.94%
FNGU MicroSectors FANG+™ Index 3X Leveraged ETN	36.18%	4.24%

Correlation

The correlation between UMDD and FNGU is 0.41, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.41
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 21, 2025	0.50

The correlation between UMDD and FNGU has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.41 to 0.50 - a consistent structural relationship.

UMDD vs. FNGU - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	UMDD	FNGU
Industrials	13.6%	-
Technology	9.1%	60.6%
Financial Services	7.5%	-
Consumer Cyclical	5.2%	9.6%
Healthcare	4.8%	-
Real Estate	4.1%	-
Energy	2.9%	-
Basic Materials	2.6%	-
Consumer Defensive	2.2%	-
Utilities	1.6%	-
Communication Services	0.5%	29.8%

Return for Risk

UMDD vs. FNGU — Risk / Return Rank

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

UMDD

UMDD Risk / Return Rank: 44
UMDD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
UMDD Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
UMDD Omega Ratio Rank: 37
UMDD Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
UMDD Martin Ratio Rank: 50

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.

UMDD vs. FNGU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares UltraPro MidCap400 (UMDD) and MicroSectors FANG+™ Index 3X Leveraged ETN (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.

	UMDD	FNGU	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.42	1.13	+0.29
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.04	1.69	+0.34
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.21	+0.04
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.54	1.09	+1.45
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	8.51	2.64	+5.87
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

UMDD vs. FNGU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UMDD Sharpe Ratio is 1.42, which is comparable to the FNGU Sharpe Ratio of 1.13. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UMDD 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

	UMDD	FNGU	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.42	1.13	+0.29
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.04	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.19	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.32	0.40	-0.08

Drawdowns

UMDD vs. FNGU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UMDD drawdown since its inception was -86.24%, which is greater than FNGU's maximum drawdown of -60.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UMDD and FNGU.

Drawdown Indicators

	UMDD	FNGU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-86.24%	-60.84%	-25.40%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-26.04%	-59.55%	+33.51%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-60.33%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-64.61%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-86.24%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.77%	-4.84%	-0.93%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-23.61%	-22.06%	-1.55%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.76%	24.57%	-16.81%

Volatility

UMDD vs. FNGU - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ProShares UltraPro MidCap400 (UMDD) is 13.48%, while MicroSectors FANG+™ Index 3X Leveraged ETN (FNGU) has a volatility of 16.40%. This indicates that UMDD 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

	UMDD	FNGU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.48%	16.40%	-2.92%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	34.23%	44.77%	-10.54%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	46.79%	57.50%	-10.71%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	58.91%	78.60%	-19.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	62.28%	78.60%	-16.32%

UMDD vs. FNGU - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both UMDD and FNGU have an expense ratio of 0.95%.

Dividends

UMDD vs. FNGU - Dividend Comparison

UMDD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.76%, while FNGU has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FNGU MicroSectors FANG+™ Index 3X Leveraged ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
UMDD ProShares UltraPro MidCap400	0.76%	1.00%	0.76%	0.19%	0.49%	0.06%	0.08%	0.64%	0.32%	0.00%	0.03%	0.06%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both UMDD and FNGU in my portfolio?

UMDD and FNGU have a correlation of 0.41, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, UMDD or FNGU?

FNGU has higher volatility (16.40%) compared to UMDD (13.48%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UMDD dropped -86.24% vs FNGU's -60.84%.

Which ETF is better, UMDD or FNGU?

On 1-year performance, UMDD leads with 65.82% vs 64.67% for FNGU. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, UMDD has been the lower-risk option at 13.48%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, UMDD or FNGU?

Over the 1-year period, UMDD has performed better with a 65.82% return vs 64.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, UMDD or FNGU?

UMDD and FNGU have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.

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

UMDD has the higher dividend yield at 0.76%, compared with 0.00% for FNGU.

What is the main difference between UMDD and FNGU?

UMDD tracks S&P MidCap 400 Index (300%), while FNGU tracks NYSE FANG (TR) (300%). They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Bank of Montreal.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

UMDD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.42 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.