BULZ vs. COTG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BULZ (MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN) and COTG (Leverage Shares 2X Long COST Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. BULZ is passively managed, while COTG is actively managed. At a correlation of -0.18, they often move in opposite directions. BULZ charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for COTG.

Performance

BULZ vs. COTG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (BULZ) and Leverage Shares 2X Long COST Daily ETF (COTG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BULZ achieves a 100.89% return, which is significantly higher than COTG's 17.32% return.

BULZ

• 1D: -3.69%
• 1M: 48.46%
• YTD: 100.89%
• 6M: 88.97%
• 1Y: 258.75%
• 3Y*: 102.20%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

COTG

• 1D: 1.39%
• 1M: -11.21%
• YTD: 17.32%
• 6M: 1.51%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BULZ vs. COTG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BULZ MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN	100.89%	3.76%
COTG Leverage Shares 2X Long COST Daily ETF	17.32%	-21.71%

Correlation

The correlation between BULZ and COTG is -0.18, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 19, 2025	-0.18

Return for Risk

BULZ vs. COTG — Risk / Return Rank

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

BULZ

BULZ Risk / Return Rank: 76
BULZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
BULZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
BULZ Omega Ratio Rank: 68
BULZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
BULZ Martin Ratio Rank: 69

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. COTG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (BULZ) and Leverage Shares 2X Long COST Daily ETF (COTG). 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.

	BULZ	COTG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.51	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.13	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.81	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.88	—	—
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BULZ	COTG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.51	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.19	-0.28	+0.47

Drawdowns

BULZ vs. COTG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BULZ drawdown since its inception was -94.44%, which is greater than COTG's maximum drawdown of -25.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BULZ and COTG.

Drawdown Indicators

	BULZ	COTG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-94.44%	-25.69%	-68.75%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-54.22%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-67.96%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.35%	-23.48%	+18.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-58.42%	-8.35%	-50.07%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	20.19%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	BULZ	COTG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	22.49%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	56.86%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	74.35%	40.65%	+33.70%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	91.23%	40.65%	+50.58%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	91.23%	40.65%	+50.58%

BULZ vs. COTG - Expense Ratio Comparison

BULZ has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than COTG's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

BULZ vs. COTG - Dividend Comparison

Neither BULZ nor COTG has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BULZ and COTG in my portfolio?

BULZ and COTG have a correlation of -0.18, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, BULZ or COTG?

On fees, COTG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, BULZ or COTG?

COTG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BULZ.

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

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

What is the main difference between BULZ and COTG?

They also come from different issuers: BMO and Leverage Shares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for BULZ and 0.75% for COTG.