XDSQ vs. NRGU

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

XDSQ (Innovator US Equity Accelerated ETF) and NRGU (MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN) are both Leveraged Equities funds. XDSQ is actively managed, while NRGU is passively managed. Over the past year, XDSQ returned 16.08% vs 171.19% for NRGU. At a 0.17 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XDSQ charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for NRGU.

Performance

XDSQ vs. NRGU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator US Equity Accelerated ETF (XDSQ) and MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN (NRGU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XDSQ achieves a 2.84% return, which is significantly lower than NRGU's 125.94% return.

XDSQ

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 1.36%
• YTD: 2.84%
• 6M: 3.73%
• 1Y: 16.08%
• 3Y*: 15.08%
• 5Y*: 9.81%
• 10Y*: —

NRGU

• 1D: -1.47%
• 1M: -6.46%
• YTD: 125.94%
• 6M: 93.16%
• 1Y: 171.19%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

XDSQ vs. NRGU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
XDSQ Innovator US Equity Accelerated ETF	2.84%	9.61%
NRGU MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN	125.94%	-33.00%

Correlation

The correlation between XDSQ and NRGU is -0.03, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.03
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 21, 2025	0.17

The correlation between XDSQ and NRGU shifts across timeframes, from -0.03 (1 year) to 0.17 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

XDSQ vs. NRGU - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XDSQ	NRGU
Technology	35.7%	-
Financial Services	11.6%	-
Communication Services	11.3%	-
Consumer Cyclical	10.2%	-
Healthcare	8.5%	-
Industrials	8.3%	-
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	-
Energy	3.5%	100.0%
Utilities	2.4%	-
Real Estate	1.9%	-
Basic Materials	1.8%	-

Return for Risk

XDSQ vs. NRGU — Risk / Return Rank

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

XDSQ

XDSQ Risk / Return Rank: 45
XDSQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
XDSQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
XDSQ Omega Ratio Rank: 52
XDSQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
XDSQ Martin Ratio Rank: 49

NRGU

NRGU Risk / Return Rank: 64
NRGU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
NRGU Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
NRGU Omega Ratio Rank: 53
NRGU Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
NRGU Martin Ratio Rank: 61

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.

XDSQ vs. NRGU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator US Equity Accelerated ETF (XDSQ) and MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN (NRGU). 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.

	XDSQ	NRGU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.53	2.31	-0.78
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.11	2.55	-0.45
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.32	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.68	4.31	-2.63
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.02	10.74	-2.71
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

XDSQ vs. NRGU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XDSQ Sharpe Ratio is 1.53, which is lower than the NRGU Sharpe Ratio of 2.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XDSQ and NRGU, 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

	XDSQ	NRGU	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.53	2.31	-0.78
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.65	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.69	0.43	+0.26

Drawdowns

XDSQ vs. NRGU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XDSQ drawdown since its inception was -26.06%, smaller than the maximum NRGU drawdown of -57.50%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XDSQ and NRGU.

Drawdown Indicators

	XDSQ	NRGU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.06%	-57.50%	+31.44%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.60%	-39.95%	+30.35%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.15%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.06%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-22.07%	+22.07%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.96%	-25.41%	+20.45%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.01%	16.01%	-14.00%

Volatility

XDSQ vs. NRGU - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator US Equity Accelerated ETF (XDSQ) is 0.53%, while MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN (NRGU) has a volatility of 31.62%. This indicates that XDSQ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NRGU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XDSQ	NRGU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.53%	31.62%	-31.09%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.39%	61.19%	-52.80%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.54%	75.02%	-64.48%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.27%	89.03%	-73.76%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.09%	89.03%	-73.94%

XDSQ vs. NRGU - Expense Ratio Comparison

XDSQ has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than NRGU's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

XDSQ vs. NRGU - Dividend Comparison

Neither XDSQ nor NRGU has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XDSQ and NRGU in my portfolio?

XDSQ and NRGU have a correlation of -0.03, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, XDSQ or NRGU?

NRGU has higher volatility (31.62%) compared to XDSQ (0.53%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XDSQ dropped -26.06% vs NRGU's -57.50%.

Which ETF is better, XDSQ or NRGU?

On 1-year performance, NRGU leads with 171.19% vs 16.08% for XDSQ. On fees, XDSQ is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, XDSQ has been the lower-risk option at 0.53%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, XDSQ or NRGU?

Over the 1-year period, NRGU has performed better with a 171.19% return vs 16.08%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XDSQ or NRGU?

XDSQ is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for NRGU.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, XDSQ or NRGU?

XDSQ and NRGU have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between XDSQ and NRGU?

They also come from different issuers: Innovator and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for XDSQ and 0.95% for NRGU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NRGU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.31 vs 1.53), 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.