BNKU vs. BULZ

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

BNKU (MicroSectors U.S. Big Banks Index 3X Leveraged ETNs) and BULZ (MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN) are both Leveraged Equities funds - BNKU tracks the Solactive MicroSectors U.S. Big Banks Index (-300%) while BULZ tracks the Solactive FANG Innovation. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, BNKU returned 111.56% vs 163.08% for BULZ. At a 0.49 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

BNKU vs. BULZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors U.S. Big Banks Index 3X Leveraged ETNs (BNKU) and MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (BULZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BNKU achieves a 14.86% return, which is significantly lower than BULZ's 54.96% return.

BNKU

• 1D: 5.30%
• 1M: 29.28%
• YTD: 14.86%
• 6M: 15.82%
• 1Y: 111.56%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BULZ

• 1D: 2.00%
• 1M: -11.00%
• YTD: 54.96%
• 6M: 57.61%
• 1Y: 163.08%
• 3Y*: 77.02%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BNKU vs. BULZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BNKU MicroSectors U.S. Big Banks Index 3X Leveraged ETNs	14.86%	34.97%
BULZ MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN	54.96%	32.67%

Correlation

The correlation between BNKU and BULZ is 0.36, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.36
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 20, 2025	0.49

The correlation between BNKU and BULZ shifts across timeframes, from 0.36 (1 year) to 0.49 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

BNKU vs. BULZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BNKU	BULZ
Financial Services	100.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	25.0%
Consumer Cyclical	-	12.8%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	62.3%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

BNKU vs. BULZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

BNKU

BNKU Risk / Return Rank: 58
BNKU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
BNKU Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
BNKU Omega Ratio Rank: 55
BNKU Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
BNKU Martin Ratio Rank: 49

BULZ

BULZ Risk / Return Rank: 63
BULZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
BULZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
BULZ Omega Ratio Rank: 59
BULZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
BULZ Martin Ratio Rank: 53

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.

BNKU vs. BULZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors U.S. Big Banks Index 3X Leveraged ETNs (BNKU) and MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (BULZ). 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.

	BNKU	BULZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.94	2.12	-0.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.30	2.36	-0.06
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.32	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.74	3.03	-0.29
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.20	7.94	-0.74

BNKU vs. BULZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BNKU Sharpe Ratio is 1.94, which is comparable to the BULZ Sharpe Ratio of 2.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BNKU and BULZ, 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

BNKU vs. BULZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BNKU drawdown since its inception was -61.21%, smaller than the maximum BULZ drawdown of -94.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BNKU and BULZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	BNKU	BULZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-61.21%	-94.44%	+33.23%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-40.97%	-54.22%	+13.25%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-67.96%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.63%	-26.99%	+24.36%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.05%	-58.18%	+40.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	15.55%	20.62%	-5.07%

Volatility

BNKU vs. BULZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for MicroSectors U.S. Big Banks Index 3X Leveraged ETNs (BNKU) is 15.55%, while MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (BULZ) has a volatility of 30.02%. This indicates that BNKU experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BULZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BNKU	BULZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	15.55%	30.02%	-14.47%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	45.72%	61.86%	-16.14%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	57.72%	77.55%	-19.83%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	73.10%	91.54%	-18.44%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	73.10%	91.54%	-18.44%

BNKU vs. BULZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both BNKU and BULZ have an expense ratio of 0.95%.

Dividends

BNKU vs. BULZ - Dividend Comparison

Neither BNKU nor BULZ has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BNKU and BULZ in my portfolio?

BNKU and BULZ have a correlation of 0.36, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BNKU or BULZ?

BULZ has higher volatility (30.02%) compared to BNKU (15.55%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BNKU dropped -61.21% vs BULZ's -94.44%.

Which ETF is better, BNKU or BULZ?

On 1-year performance, BULZ leads with 163.08% vs 111.56% for BNKU. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, BNKU has been the lower-risk option at 15.55%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BNKU or BULZ?

Over the 1-year period, BULZ has performed better with a 163.08% return vs 111.56%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BNKU or BULZ?

BNKU and BULZ have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BNKU or BULZ?

BNKU and BULZ have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between BNKU and BULZ?

BNKU tracks Solactive MicroSectors U.S. Big Banks Index (-300%), while BULZ tracks Solactive FANG Innovation. They also come from different issuers: Bank of Montreal and BMO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BULZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.12 vs 1.94), 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.