BULZ vs. DRAM

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BULZ (MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs) and DRAM (Roundhill Memory ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BULZ is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%), while DRAM is a Technology Equities fund actively managed by Roundhill. BULZ is passively managed, while DRAM is actively managed. A 0.73 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BULZ charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for DRAM.

Performance

BULZ vs. DRAM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) and Roundhill Memory ETF (DRAM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

BULZ

• 1D: -11.88%
• 1M: -15.57%
• YTD: 42.05%
• 6M: 35.20%
• 1Y: 135.83%
• 3Y*: 74.62%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

DRAM

• 1D: -14.25%
• 1M: 31.05%
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BULZ vs. DRAM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
BULZ MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs	99.19%
DRAM Roundhill Memory ETF	156.37%

Correlation

The correlation between BULZ and DRAM is 0.73, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 2, 2026	0.73

BULZ vs. DRAM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BULZ	DRAM
Technology	60.8%	100.0%
Communication Services	26.2%	-
Consumer Cyclical	13.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

BULZ vs. DRAM — Risk / Return Rank

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

BULZ

BULZ Risk / Return Rank: 47
BULZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
BULZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
BULZ Omega Ratio Rank: 45
BULZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
BULZ Martin Ratio Rank: 42

DRAM

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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. DRAM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) and Roundhill Memory ETF (DRAM). 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	DRAM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.71	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.12	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.52	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.50	—	—

Drawdowns

BULZ vs. DRAM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BULZ drawdown since its inception was -94.44%, which is greater than DRAM's maximum drawdown of -19.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BULZ and DRAM.

Drawdown Indicators

	BULZ	DRAM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-94.44%	-19.97%	-74.47%
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	-33.07%	-14.25%	-18.82%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-58.02%	-3.09%	-54.93%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	20.98%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	BULZ	DRAM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	35.31%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	63.55%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	80.03%	93.22%	-13.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	91.84%	93.22%	-1.38%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	91.84%	93.22%	-1.38%

BULZ vs. DRAM - Expense Ratio Comparison

BULZ has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than DRAM's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

BULZ vs. DRAM - Dividend Comparison

Neither BULZ nor DRAM has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BULZ and DRAM in my portfolio?

BULZ and DRAM have a correlation of 0.73, 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 DRAM?

On fees, DRAM is cheaper at 0.65% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, BULZ or DRAM?

DRAM is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BULZ.

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

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

What is the main difference between BULZ and DRAM?

BULZ is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while DRAM is Technology Equities. They also come from different issuers: BMO and Roundhill. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for BULZ and 0.65% for DRAM.