BULZ vs. FNGD

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

BULZ (MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs) and FNGD (MicroSectors FANG+™ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN) are both Leveraged Equities funds from BMO - BULZ tracks the Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%) while FNGD tracks the NYSE FANG+ Index (Gross Total Return, -300% Daily). Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, BULZ returned 62.45%/yr vs -66.65%/yr for FNGD. Their -0.92 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

BULZ vs. FNGD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) and MicroSectors FANG+™ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (FNGD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BULZ achieves a 25.41% return, which is significantly higher than FNGD's -40.15% return.

BULZ

• 1D: 10.00%
• 1M: -9.61%
• 6M: 24.24%
• YTD: 25.41%
• 1Y: 91.64%
• 3Y*: 62.45%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 5.31%

FNGD

• 1D: -8.21%
• 1M: -12.51%
• 6M: -44.86%
• YTD: -40.15%
• 1Y: -52.57%
• 3Y*: -66.65%
• 5Y*: -63.58%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -70.21%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BULZ MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs	$25.71M	$28.40M	$43.12M
FNGD MicroSectors FANG+™ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN	$12.93M	$14.38M	$20.19M

BULZ vs. FNGD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BULZ MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs	25.41%	60.09%	54.09%	394.22%	-92.26%	9.17%
FNGD MicroSectors FANG+™ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN	-40.15%	-61.42%	-76.57%	-90.14%	52.21%	-30.64%

Correlation

The correlation between BULZ and FNGD is -0.88, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	-0.88
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	-0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 18, 2021	-0.92

The correlation between BULZ and FNGD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from -0.92 to -0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

BULZ vs. FNGD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BULZ	FNGD
Technology	65.0%	59.6%
Communication Services	20.9%	30.0%
Consumer Cyclical	14.2%	10.4%
Financial Services	13.3%	10.0%
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

BULZ vs. FNGD — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

BULZ

BULZ Risk / Return Rank: 43
BULZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
BULZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
BULZ Omega Ratio Rank: 45
BULZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
BULZ Martin Ratio Rank: 36

FNGD

FNGD Risk / Return Rank: 3
FNGD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3
FNGD Sortino Ratio Rank: 3
FNGD Omega Ratio Rank: 3
FNGD Calmar Ratio Rank: 3
FNGD Martin Ratio Rank: 1

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

BULZ vs. FNGD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) and MicroSectors FANG+™ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (FNGD). 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	FNGD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.08	-0.79	+1.86
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.73	-1.08	+2.81
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	0.88	+0.34
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.67	-0.80	+2.47
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.75	-1.50	+5.25

BULZ vs. FNGD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BULZ Sharpe Ratio is 1.08, which is higher than the FNGD Sharpe Ratio of -0.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BULZ and FNGD, 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. FNGD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BULZ drawdown since its inception was -94.44%, smaller than the maximum FNGD drawdown of -100.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BULZ and FNGD.

Drawdown Indicators

	BULZ	FNGD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-94.44%	-100.00%	+5.56%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-55.29%	-65.92%	+10.63%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-67.96%	-97.35%	+29.39%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-99.67%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-40.91%	-100.00%	+59.09%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-57.56%	-87.46%	+29.90%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	24.55%	35.49%	-10.94%

Volatility

BULZ vs. FNGD - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) has a higher volatility of 32.71% compared to MicroSectors FANG+™ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (FNGD) at 19.94%. This indicates that BULZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FNGD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BULZ	FNGD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	32.71%	19.94%	+12.77%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	70.17%	55.19%	+14.98%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	85.84%	66.98%	+18.86%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	92.15%	89.87%	+2.28%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	92.15%	90.97%	+1.18%

BULZ vs. FNGD - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

BULZ vs. FNGD - Dividend Comparison

Neither BULZ nor FNGD has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BULZ and FNGD in my portfolio?

BULZ and FNGD have a correlation of -0.88, 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 FNGD?

BULZ has higher volatility (32.71%) compared to FNGD (19.94%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BULZ dropped -94.44% vs FNGD's -100.00%.

Which ETF is better, BULZ or FNGD?

On 3-year performance, BULZ leads with 62.45% vs -66.65% for FNGD. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, FNGD has been the lower-risk option at 19.94%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BULZ or FNGD?

Over the 3-year period, BULZ has performed better with a 62.45% return vs -66.65%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BULZ or FNGD?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between BULZ and FNGD?

BULZ tracks Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%), while FNGD tracks NYSE FANG+ Index (Gross Total Return, -300% Daily).

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BULZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.08 vs -0.79), 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.