BULZ vs. BNKU

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

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

Performance

BULZ vs. BNKU - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

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

BULZ

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

BNKU

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

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

BULZ vs. BNKU - Yearly Performance Comparison

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

Correlation

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

BULZ vs. BNKU - Sectors Allocation Comparison

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

Return for Risk

BULZ vs. BNKU — Risk / Return Rank

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

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

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

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.

BULZ vs. BNKU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

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

BULZ vs. BNKU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

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

BULZ vs. BNKU - Drawdown Comparison

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

Drawdown Indicators

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

Volatility

BULZ vs. BNKU - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (BULZ) has a higher volatility of 30.02% compared to MicroSectors U.S. Big Banks Index 3X Leveraged ETNs (BNKU) at 15.55%. This indicates that BULZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BNKU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

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

BULZ vs. BNKU - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

BULZ vs. BNKU - Dividend Comparison

Neither BULZ nor BNKU has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BULZ and BNKU in my portfolio?

BULZ and BNKU 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, BULZ or BNKU?

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

Which ETF is better, BULZ or BNKU?

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, BULZ or BNKU?

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, BULZ or BNKU?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between BULZ and BNKU?

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

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.