ACES vs FNGG
ALPS Clean Energy ETF vs Direxion Daily NYSE FANG+ Bull 2X ETF
Quick Verdict
ACES has a lower expense ratio. FNGG delivered stronger 1-year returns. ACES offers more diversification with 38 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | ACES | FNGG | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.55% | 0.97% | |
| AUM | $124M | $143M | |
| Dividend Yield | 0.73% | 10.70% | |
| Holdings | 38 | 18 | |
| YTD Return | -9.98% | +27.62% | |
| 1Y Return | +4.23% | +28.50% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | -7.86% | +59.46% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -14.58% | +3.45% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 35.3% | 58.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -79.0% | -91.3% | |
| Fund Family | ALPS Advisors | Direxion Shares ETF Trust | |
| Category | Equity | Alternative | |
| Inception | Jun 27, 2018 | Sep 29, 2021 |
ACES vs FNGG Performance
ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) is a ETF from ALPS Advisors and Direxion Daily NYSE FANG+ Bull 2X ETF (FNGG) is a ETF from Direxion Shares ETF Trust. Over the past year ACES returned +4.23% while FNGG returned +28.50%. Year to date, ACES is down 9.98% versus a gain of 27.62% for FNGG.
Over three years, ACES compounded at -7.86% per year against +59.46% for FNGG; over five years the annualized figures are -14.58% and +3.45% respectively. Across the full 5-year window we track, FNGG has the edge at +3.45% annualized vs +2.95%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FNGG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 58.3% compared with 35.3% for ACES. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -79.0% for ACES and -91.3% for FNGG. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.57. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ACES charges 0.55% per year while FNGG charges 0.97%. On a $10,000 position that is $55 vs $97 annually, a gap of $42 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ACES currently yields 0.73% against 10.70% for FNGG.
Holdings Overlap
ACES and FNGG share 0 holdings out of 50 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, ACES or FNGG?
ACES has an expense ratio of 0.55% while FNGG charges 0.97%. ACES is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $42 per year of difference.
Which performed better, ACES or FNGG?
Over the past year ACES returned +4.23% vs +28.50% for FNGG, so FNGG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (5 years), ACES annualized +2.95% vs +3.45% for FNGG. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, ACES or FNGG?
FNGG has been the more volatile fund at 58.3% annualized versus 35.3% for ACES. Worst drawdown: ACES -79.0% vs FNGG -91.3%.
Should I hold both ACES and FNGG?
ACES and FNGG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.57, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between ACES and FNGG?
ACES and FNGG share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 50 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, ACES or FNGG?
ACES yields 0.73% while FNGG yields 10.70%, so FNGG currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.