BULZ vs. FNGO

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

BULZ (MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs) and FNGO (MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN) are both Leveraged Equities funds - BULZ tracks the Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%) while FNGO tracks the NYSE FANG+ Index (+200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, BULZ returned 82.14%/yr vs 51.23%/yr for FNGO. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

BULZ vs. FNGO - 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 2X Leveraged ETN (FNGO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BULZ achieves a 61.20% return, which is significantly higher than FNGO's 11.80% return.

BULZ

• 1D: -2.95%
• 1M: -4.19%
• YTD: 61.20%
• 6M: 55.42%
• 1Y: 175.88%
• 3Y*: 82.14%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FNGO

• 1D: -5.77%
• 1M: -2.31%
• YTD: 11.80%
• 6M: 9.81%
• 1Y: 34.51%
• 3Y*: 51.23%
• 5Y*: 24.04%
• 10Y*: —

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

BULZ vs. FNGO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BULZ MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs	61.20%	60.09%	54.09%	394.22%	-92.26%	9.17%
FNGO MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN	11.80%	25.49%	101.65%	240.10%	-71.55%	13.86%

Correlation

The correlation between BULZ and FNGO is 0.86, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.86
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 18, 2021	0.91

The correlation between BULZ and FNGO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

BULZ vs. FNGO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BULZ	FNGO
Technology	60.8%	63.4%
Communication Services	26.2%	26.0%
Consumer Cyclical	13.0%	10.6%
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	10.0%
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

BULZ vs. FNGO — Risk / Return Rank

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

BULZ

BULZ Risk / Return Rank: 59
BULZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
BULZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
BULZ Omega Ratio Rank: 54
BULZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
BULZ Martin Ratio Rank: 51

FNGO

FNGO Risk / Return Rank: 22
FNGO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
FNGO Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
FNGO Omega Ratio Rank: 23
FNGO Calmar Ratio Rank: 19
FNGO Martin Ratio Rank: 19

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. FNGO - 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 2X Leveraged ETN (FNGO). 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	FNGO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.24	0.79	+1.44
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.44	1.30	+1.14
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.16	+0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.26	0.81	+2.45
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.46	2.09	+6.37

BULZ vs. FNGO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BULZ Sharpe Ratio is 2.24, which is higher than the FNGO Sharpe Ratio of 0.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BULZ and FNGO, 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. FNGO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BULZ drawdown since its inception was -94.44%, which is greater than FNGO's maximum drawdown of -78.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BULZ and FNGO.

Drawdown Indicators

	BULZ	FNGO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-94.44%	-78.39%	-16.05%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-54.22%	-42.73%	-11.49%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-67.96%	-47.64%	-20.32%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-78.39%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-24.05%	-16.29%	-7.76%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-58.04%	-23.84%	-34.20%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	20.87%	16.57%	+4.30%

Volatility

BULZ vs. FNGO - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) has a higher volatility of 33.09% compared to MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN (FNGO) at 21.12%. This indicates that BULZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FNGO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BULZ	FNGO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	33.09%	21.12%	+11.97%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	62.60%	35.02%	+27.58%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	79.22%	43.73%	+35.49%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	91.72%	60.77%	+30.95%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	91.72%	61.70%	+30.02%

BULZ vs. FNGO - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

BULZ vs. FNGO - Dividend Comparison

Neither BULZ nor FNGO has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BULZ and FNGO in my portfolio?

BULZ and FNGO have a correlation of 0.86, 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 FNGO?

BULZ has higher volatility (33.09%) compared to FNGO (21.12%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BULZ dropped -94.44% vs FNGO's -78.39%.

Which ETF is better, BULZ or FNGO?

On 3-year performance, BULZ leads with 82.14% vs 51.23% for FNGO. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, FNGO has been the lower-risk option at 21.12%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BULZ or FNGO?

Over the 3-year period, BULZ has performed better with a 82.14% return vs 51.23%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BULZ or FNGO?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between BULZ and FNGO?

BULZ tracks Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%), while FNGO tracks NYSE FANG+ Index (+200%). They also come from different issuers: BMO and Bank of Montreal.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BULZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.24 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.