FNGD vs TQQQ: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
FNGD and TQQQ are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. FNGD is MicroSectors FANG+ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN, while TQQQ is ProShares UltraPro QQQ. TQQQ is broader by holdings count, with 116 positions versus 10 for FNGD. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has FNGD ahead on AIQ Score, 48 versus 40.
What is the main difference between FNGD and TQQQ?
TQQQ holds 116 positions to FNGD's 10.
| Metric | FNGD | TQQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.95% | 0.94% |
| Holdings | 10 | 116 |
| Average volume | 430,083 | 57,918,163 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -41.7% | +23.1% |
| YTD return | -46.6% | +25.7% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | -62.7% | +13.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 68.7% | 59.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -73.5% | -37.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -99.7% | -81.7% |
| Beta | -4.53 | 4.33 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.55 | 0.63 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.83 | 0.97 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 48/100 | 40/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 2/10 |
| Momentum | 73/100 | 26/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 1/100 | 0/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
MicroSectors FANG+ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN vs ProShares UltraPro QQQ
FNGD leads
FNGD leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from TQQQ.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support FNGD, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
MicroSectors FANG+ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN
ProShares UltraPro QQQ
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FNGD over TQQQ, 48 versus 40 as of Oct 24, 2026. FNGD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while TQQQ holds the stronger quality profile. FNGD also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor FNGD today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. FNGD lead: Reversed — TQQQ led by 14 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FNGD now leads by 8.
Compare MicroSectors FANG+ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN and ProShares UltraPro QQQ across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
FNGD vs TQQQ: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | FNGD | TQQQ | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.95% | 0.94% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 10 | 116 | TQQQ |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -99.7% | -81.7% | TQQQ |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 68.7% | 59.8% | TQQQ |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare FNGD and TQQQ against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Momentum73 vs 26FNGD +47
- Quality50 vs 77TQQQ +27
- Value48 vs 33FNGD +15
- Risk Resilience1 vs 0Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor FNGD. FNGD’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; TQQQ keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-23, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-22.
Largest factor move: Value -4, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Value +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
FNGD's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FNGD and TQQQ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FNGD (MicroSectors FANG+ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
TQQQ (ProShares UltraPro QQQ): the counter-case, on quality, technicals.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | FNGD | TQQQ | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.95% | 0.94% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 10 | 116 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 430,083 | 57,918,163 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 68.7% | 59.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -73.5% | -37.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.55 | 0.63 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | -4.53 | 4.33 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor FNGD. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FNGD | 48 vs 40 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | FNGD | Value 48 vs 33 |
| Technicals | TQQQ | Price vs 50-day 8.9% vs -10.5%; vs 200-day -34.3% vs 1.7% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 1 vs 0 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FNGD and TQQQ and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 8 points.
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on FNGD.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 24 – Oct 23FNGD lead: Reversed — TQQQ led by 14 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FNGD now leads by 8.
- Today
- FNGD +8
- 48 vs 40
- 7 sessions ago
- TQQQ +1
- 41 vs 42
- 30 sessions ago
- TQQQ +14
- 39 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- TQQQ +13
- 33 vs 46
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Oct 17 when TQQQ moved ahead of FNGD.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only FNGD
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (65.72%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only TQQQ
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.63%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode.
FNGD leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.68%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.2%, AIQ +1 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1TQQQ closes the Momentum gap — currently 47 points behind, the largest single contributor to FNGD's edge.
- 2TQQQ's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3FNGD's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
TQQQ leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | FNGD | TQQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 5.3% | -2.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 17.7% | -16.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -23.8% | 4.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -37.2% | 6% |
| Year to date | -46.6% | 25.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -41.7% | 23.1% |
Technicals
TQQQ has the stronger structure| Metric | FNGD | TQQQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 69.3 | 23.2 |
| ADX (14) | 24.3 | 25.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.9% | -10.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -34.3% | 1.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 63.2% | 54.9% |
Risk
Split| Metric | FNGD | TQQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -4.53 | 4.33 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.55 | 0.63 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.83 | 0.97 |
| Max drawdown | -73.5% | -37.2% |
| Current drawdown | -67.2% | -24% |
| Annualized volatility | 68.7% | 59.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.9% | -6% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between FNGD and TQQQ?
TQQQ holds 116 positions to FNGD's 10.
Which ETF is more diversified, FNGD or TQQQ?
TQQQ holds more positions: 116 versus 10 for FNGD.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
The two are within a basis point: 0.95% for FNGD and 0.94% for TQQQ.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
FNGD has been more volatile over the past year, at 68.7% annualized against 59.8% for TQQQ.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
TQQQ fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -81.7% against -99.7% for FNGD.
Compare FNGD and TQQQ with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.