BULZ vs. FAS

Last updated Jul 22, 2026

BULZ (MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs) and FAS (Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds - BULZ tracks the Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%) while FAS tracks the Financial Select Sector Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, BULZ returned 68.81%/yr vs 37.42%/yr for FAS. At a 0.49 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BULZ charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.88%/yr for FAS.

Performance

BULZ vs. FAS - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BULZ achieves a 38.51% return, which is significantly higher than FAS's 0.21% return.

BULZ

• 1D: 10.04%
• 1M: -16.61%
• 6M: 40.54%
• YTD: 38.51%
• 1Y: 89.80%
• 3Y*: 68.81%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 7.50%

FAS

• 1D: 0.34%
• 1M: 14.66%
• 6M: 10.47%
• YTD: 0.21%
• 1Y: 9.01%
• 3Y*: 37.42%
• 5Y*: 13.19%
• 10Y*: 21.50%
• ALL TIME*: 13.87%

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

BULZ vs. FAS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BULZ MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs	38.51%	60.09%	54.09%	394.22%	-92.26%	9.17%
FAS Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X ETF	0.21%	21.48%	84.47%	14.92%	-43.19%	8.45%

Correlation

The correlation between BULZ and FAS is 0.20, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.20
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.33
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 18, 2021	0.49

Over the past year, the correlation between BULZ and FAS has dropped to 0.20 - well below their long-term average of 0.49, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

BULZ vs. FAS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BULZ	FAS
Technology	65.0%	1.6%
Communication Services	20.9%	-
Consumer Cyclical	14.2%	-
Financial Services	13.3%	98.2%
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	0.2%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

BULZ vs. FAS — Risk / Return Rank

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

BULZ

BULZ Risk / Return Rank: 42
BULZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
BULZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
BULZ Omega Ratio Rank: 44
BULZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
BULZ Martin Ratio Rank: 36

FAS

FAS Risk / Return Rank: 15
FAS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 14
FAS Sortino Ratio Rank: 16
FAS Omega Ratio Rank: 16
FAS Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
FAS Martin Ratio Rank: 14

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. FAS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) and Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X ETF (FAS). 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	FAS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.10	0.21	+0.89
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.71	0.58	+1.13
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.07	+0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.67	0.22	+1.44
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.92	0.49	+3.43

BULZ vs. FAS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BULZ Sharpe Ratio is 1.10, which is higher than the FAS Sharpe Ratio of 0.21. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BULZ and FAS, 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. FAS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BULZ drawdown since its inception was -94.44%, roughly equal to the maximum FAS drawdown of -91.61%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BULZ and FAS.

Drawdown Indicators

	BULZ	FAS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-94.44%	-91.61%	-2.83%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-54.22%	-40.88%	-13.34%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-67.96%	-43.10%	-24.86%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-66.88%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-85.99%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-34.74%	-8.06%	-26.68%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-57.65%	-31.02%	-26.63%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	22.96%	18.46%	+4.50%

Volatility

BULZ vs. FAS - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) has a higher volatility of 26.72% compared to Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X ETF (FAS) at 11.68%. This indicates that BULZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FAS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BULZ	FAS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	26.72%	11.68%	+15.04%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	66.44%	33.49%	+32.95%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	82.28%	43.44%	+38.84%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	91.72%	54.96%	+36.76%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	91.72%	61.10%	+30.62%

BULZ vs. FAS - Expense Ratio Comparison

BULZ has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than FAS's 0.88% expense ratio.

Dividends

BULZ vs. FAS - Dividend Comparison

BULZ has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FAS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.37%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
BULZ MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FAS Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X ETF	8.37%	8.21%	0.76%	1.77%	0.91%	0.60%	0.47%	0.62%	1.43%	0.11%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BULZ and FAS in my portfolio?

BULZ and FAS have a correlation of 0.20, 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 FAS?

BULZ has higher volatility (26.72%) compared to FAS (11.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BULZ dropped -94.44% vs FAS's -91.61%.

Which ETF is better, BULZ or FAS?

On 3-year performance, BULZ leads with 68.81% vs 37.42% for FAS. On fees, FAS is cheaper at 0.88% per year. On volatility, FAS has been the lower-risk option at 11.68%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BULZ or FAS?

Over the 3-year period, BULZ has performed better with a 68.81% return vs 37.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BULZ or FAS?

FAS is cheaper with a 0.88% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BULZ.

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

FAS has the higher dividend yield at 8.37%, compared with 0.00% for BULZ.

What is the main difference between BULZ and FAS?

BULZ tracks Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%), while FAS tracks Financial Select Sector Index. They also come from different issuers: BMO and Direxion. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for BULZ and 0.88% for FAS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BULZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.10 vs 0.21), 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.