FNGO vs IVV
MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. FNGO delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | FNGO | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.95% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $772M | $907.0B | |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 1.10% | |
| Holdings | 10 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +34.00% | +14.29% | |
| 1Y Return | +30.45% | +21.79% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +61.12% | +22.19% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +28.20% | +13.28% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 56.2% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -78.4% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | BMO Capital Markets | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Alternative | Equity | |
| Inception | Aug 1, 2018 | May 15, 2000 |
FNGO vs IVV Performance
MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN (FNGO) is a ETF from BMO Capital Markets and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year FNGO returned +30.45% while IVV returned +21.79%. Year to date, FNGO is up 34.00% versus a gain of 14.29% for IVV.
Over three years, FNGO compounded at +61.12% per year against +22.19% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +28.20% and +13.28% respectively. Across the full 8-year window we track, FNGO has the edge at +39.78% annualized vs +7.06%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FNGO has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 56.2% compared with 15.1% for IVV. 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 -78.4% for FNGO and -56.5% for IVV. 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 0.78. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FNGO charges 0.95% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $95 vs $3 annually, a gap of $92 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FNGO currently yields 0.00% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
FNGO and IVV share 10 holdings out of 505 unique holdings combined, representing a 34.3% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, FNGO or IVV?
FNGO has an expense ratio of 0.95% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $92 per year of difference.
Which performed better, FNGO or IVV?
Over the past year FNGO returned +30.45% vs +21.79% for IVV, so FNGO leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (8 years), FNGO annualized +39.78% vs +7.06% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, FNGO or IVV?
FNGO has been the more volatile fund at 56.2% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: FNGO -78.4% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both FNGO and IVV?
FNGO and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.78, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between FNGO and IVV?
FNGO and IVV share 10 common holdings with a 34.3% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 505 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, FNGO or IVV?
FNGO yields 0.00% while IVV yields 1.10%, so IVV 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.