UTES vs. FNGS

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

UTES (Virtus Reaves Utilities ETF) and FNGS (MicroSectors FANG+ ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - UTES is a Utilities Equities fund actively managed by Virtus Investment Partners, while FNGS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the NYSE FANG+ Index. UTES is actively managed, while FNGS is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, UTES returned 15.32%/yr vs 19.76%/yr for FNGS. At a 0.26 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. UTES charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for FNGS.

Performance

UTES vs. FNGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Virtus Reaves Utilities ETF (UTES) 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, UTES achieves a 0.26% return, which is significantly lower than FNGS's 6.79% return.

UTES

• 1D: 1.56%
• 1M: -0.29%
• YTD: 0.26%
• 6M: 0.49%
• 1Y: 8.31%
• 3Y*: 22.00%
• 5Y*: 15.32%
• 10Y*: 12.27%

FNGS

• 1D: -0.94%
• 1M: -3.20%
• YTD: 6.79%
• 6M: 4.25%
• 1Y: 17.02%
• 3Y*: 29.80%
• 5Y*: 19.76%
• 10Y*: —

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

UTES vs. FNGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
UTES Virtus Reaves Utilities ETF	0.26%	25.71%	45.35%	-2.46%	0.80%	20.74%	-0.30%	5.90%
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	6.79%	18.64%	51.99%	95.24%	-40.32%	16.96%	101.99%	10.10%

Correlation

The correlation between UTES and FNGS is 0.21, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.21
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.24
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.25
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 13, 2019	0.26

UTES vs. FNGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	UTES	FNGS
Utilities	100.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	28.8%
Consumer Cyclical	-	11.3%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	10.0%
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	59.9%

Return for Risk

UTES vs. FNGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

UTES

UTES Risk / Return Rank: 16
UTES Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
UTES Sortino Ratio Rank: 16
UTES Omega Ratio Rank: 15
UTES Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
UTES Martin Ratio Rank: 17

FNGS

FNGS Risk / Return Rank: 23
FNGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
FNGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
FNGS Omega Ratio Rank: 24
FNGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
FNGS Martin Ratio Rank: 20

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.

UTES vs. FNGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Virtus Reaves Utilities ETF (UTES) 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.

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.

	UTES	FNGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.39	0.79	-0.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.67	1.19	-0.52
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.08	1.15	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.60	0.75	-0.14
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.32	2.12	-0.79

UTES vs. FNGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UTES Sharpe Ratio is 0.39, which is lower than the FNGS Sharpe Ratio of 0.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UTES 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.

Drawdowns

UTES vs. FNGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UTES drawdown since its inception was -35.39%, smaller than the maximum FNGS drawdown of -48.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UTES and FNGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	UTES	FNGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.39%	-48.98%	+13.59%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.88%	-22.93%	+9.05%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.62%	-26.77%	+9.15%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.40%	-48.98%	+28.58%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.39%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.10%	-9.63%	+0.53%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.53%	-10.85%	+5.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.29%	8.05%	-1.76%

Volatility

UTES vs. FNGS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Virtus Reaves Utilities ETF (UTES) is 7.23%, while MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) has a volatility of 8.74%. This indicates that UTES experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FNGS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	UTES	FNGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.23%	8.74%	-1.51%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.05%	17.19%	-0.14%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.32%	21.65%	-0.33%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.62%	30.10%	-9.48%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.17%	31.17%	-11.00%

UTES vs. FNGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

UTES vs. FNGS - Dividend Comparison

UTES's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.49%, while FNGS has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ 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%
UTES Virtus Reaves Utilities ETF	1.49%	1.42%	1.51%	2.44%	2.13%	1.94%	2.09%	1.84%	2.09%	3.44%	3.53%	0.61%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both UTES and FNGS in my portfolio?

UTES and FNGS have a correlation of 0.21, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, UTES or FNGS?

FNGS has higher volatility (8.74%) compared to UTES (7.23%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UTES dropped -35.39% vs FNGS's -48.98%.

Which ETF is better, UTES or FNGS?

On 5-year performance, FNGS leads with 19.76% vs 15.32% for UTES. On fees, UTES is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, UTES has been the lower-risk option at 7.23%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, UTES or FNGS?

Over the 5-year period, FNGS has performed better with a 19.76% return vs 15.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, UTES or FNGS?

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

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

UTES has the higher dividend yield at 1.49%, compared with 0.00% for FNGS.

What is the main difference between UTES and FNGS?

UTES is categorized as Utilities Equities, while FNGS is Large Cap Growth Equities. They also come from different issuers: Virtus Investment Partners and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for UTES and 0.58% for FNGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FNGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.79 vs 0.39), 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.