BULZ vs. FLYU

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

BULZ (MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN) and FLYU (MicroSectors Travel 3X Leveraged ETNs) are both Leveraged Equities funds - BULZ tracks the Solactive FANG Innovation while FLYU tracks the MerQube MicroSectors U.S. Travel Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, BULZ returned 77.02%/yr vs 4.85%/yr for FLYU. A 0.61 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

BULZ vs. FLYU - 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 Travel 3X Leveraged ETNs (FLYU). 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 FLYU's -18.15% return.

BULZ

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

FLYU

• 1D: 2.56%
• 1M: 19.09%
• YTD: -18.15%
• 6M: -16.93%
• 1Y: 1.53%
• 3Y*: 4.85%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BULZ vs. FLYU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
BULZ MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN	54.96%	60.09%	54.09%	394.22%	-47.04%
FLYU MicroSectors Travel 3X Leveraged ETNs	-18.15%	-2.29%	33.00%	111.16%	-19.09%

Correlation

The correlation between BULZ and FLYU is 0.48, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.48
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 22, 2022	0.61

The correlation between BULZ and FLYU shifts across timeframes, from 0.48 (1 year) to 0.61 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

BULZ vs. FLYU - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BULZ	FLYU
Technology	62.3%	16.4%
Communication Services	25.0%	13.2%
Consumer Cyclical	12.8%	52.6%
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	17.7%
Real Estate	-	0.1%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

BULZ vs. FLYU — 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

FLYU

FLYU Risk / Return Rank: 11
FLYU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 10
FLYU Sortino Ratio Rank: 14
FLYU Omega Ratio Rank: 14
FLYU Calmar Ratio Rank: 10
FLYU Martin Ratio Rank: 10

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. FLYU - 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 Travel 3X Leveraged ETNs (FLYU). 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	FLYU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.12	0.02	+2.10
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.36	0.59	+1.77
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.07	+0.25
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.03	0.03	+3.00
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.94	0.06	+7.88

BULZ vs. FLYU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BULZ Sharpe Ratio is 2.12, which is higher than the FLYU Sharpe Ratio of 0.02. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BULZ and FLYU, 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. FLYU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BULZ drawdown since its inception was -94.44%, which is greater than FLYU's maximum drawdown of -69.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BULZ and FLYU.

Drawdown Indicators

	BULZ	FLYU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-94.44%	-69.00%	-25.44%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-54.22%	-52.33%	-1.89%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-67.96%	-69.00%	+1.04%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-26.99%	-35.07%	+8.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-58.18%	-26.53%	-31.65%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	20.62%	25.05%	-4.43%

Volatility

BULZ vs. FLYU - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (BULZ) has a higher volatility of 30.02% compared to MicroSectors Travel 3X Leveraged ETNs (FLYU) at 23.60%. This indicates that BULZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLYU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BULZ	FLYU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	30.02%	23.60%	+6.42%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	61.86%	59.07%	+2.79%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	77.55%	75.07%	+2.48%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	91.54%	83.21%	+8.33%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	91.54%	83.21%	+8.33%

BULZ vs. FLYU - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

BULZ vs. FLYU - Dividend Comparison

Neither BULZ nor FLYU has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BULZ and FLYU in my portfolio?

BULZ and FLYU have a correlation of 0.48, 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 FLYU?

BULZ has higher volatility (30.02%) compared to FLYU (23.60%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BULZ dropped -94.44% vs FLYU's -69.00%.

Which ETF is better, BULZ or FLYU?

On 3-year performance, BULZ leads with 77.02% vs 4.85% for FLYU. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, FLYU has been the lower-risk option at 23.60%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BULZ or FLYU?

Over the 3-year period, BULZ has performed better with a 77.02% return vs 4.85%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BULZ or FLYU?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between BULZ and FLYU?

BULZ tracks Solactive FANG Innovation, while FLYU tracks MerQube MicroSectors U.S. Travel Index. They also come from different issuers: BMO and REX.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BULZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.12 vs 0.02), 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.