BULZ vs. GDXU

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BULZ (MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN) and GDXU (MicroSectors Gold Miners 3X Leveraged ETN) are both Leveraged Equities funds from BMO - BULZ tracks the Solactive FANG Innovation while GDXU tracks the S-Network MicroSectors Gold Miners Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, BULZ returned 102.20%/yr vs 46.61%/yr for GDXU. At a 0.22 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

BULZ vs. GDXU - 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 Gold Miners 3X Leveraged ETN (GDXU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BULZ achieves a 100.89% return, which is significantly higher than GDXU's -43.81% return.

BULZ

• 1D: -3.69%
• 1M: 48.46%
• YTD: 100.89%
• 6M: 88.97%
• 1Y: 258.75%
• 3Y*: 102.20%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GDXU

• 1D: -10.63%
• 1M: -11.26%
• YTD: -43.81%
• 6M: -33.96%
• 1Y: 72.31%
• 3Y*: 46.61%
• 5Y*: -10.91%
• 10Y*: —

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

BULZ vs. GDXU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BULZ MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN	100.89%	60.09%	54.09%	394.22%	-92.26%	12.62%
GDXU MicroSectors Gold Miners 3X Leveraged ETN	-43.81%	796.47%	-18.60%	-21.36%	-62.82%	-0.95%

Correlation

The correlation between BULZ and GDXU is 0.29, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.29
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.22
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 19, 2021	0.22

BULZ vs. GDXU - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BULZ	GDXU
Technology	62.3%	-
Communication Services	25.0%	-
Consumer Cyclical	12.8%	-
Basic Materials	-	100.0%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

BULZ vs. GDXU — Risk / Return Rank

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

BULZ

BULZ Risk / Return Rank: 76
BULZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
BULZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
BULZ Omega Ratio Rank: 68
BULZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
BULZ Martin Ratio Rank: 69

GDXU

GDXU Risk / Return Rank: 23
GDXU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
GDXU Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
GDXU Omega Ratio Rank: 31
GDXU Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
GDXU Martin Ratio Rank: 18

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. GDXU - 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 Gold Miners 3X Leveraged ETN (GDXU). 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.

	BULZ	GDXU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.51	0.53	+2.98
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.13	1.53	+1.59
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.21	+0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.81	0.98	+3.82
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.88	2.00	+10.88
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BULZ vs. GDXU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BULZ Sharpe Ratio is 3.51, which is higher than the GDXU Sharpe Ratio of 0.53. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BULZ and GDXU, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BULZ	GDXU	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.51	0.53	+2.98
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	-0.10	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.19	-0.09	+0.28

Drawdowns

BULZ vs. GDXU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BULZ drawdown since its inception was -94.44%, roughly equal to the maximum GDXU drawdown of -94.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BULZ and GDXU.

Drawdown Indicators

	BULZ	GDXU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-94.44%	-94.39%	-0.05%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-54.22%	-73.99%	+19.77%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-67.96%	-73.99%	+6.03%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-92.93%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.35%	-73.92%	+68.57%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-58.42%	-69.77%	+11.35%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	20.19%	36.23%	-16.04%

Volatility

BULZ vs. GDXU - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (BULZ) is 22.49%, while MicroSectors Gold Miners 3X Leveraged ETN (GDXU) has a volatility of 46.45%. This indicates that BULZ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GDXU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BULZ	GDXU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	22.49%	46.45%	-23.96%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	56.86%	118.07%	-61.21%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	74.35%	137.57%	-63.22%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	91.23%	110.85%	-19.62%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	91.23%	110.02%	-18.79%

BULZ vs. GDXU - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

BULZ vs. GDXU - Dividend Comparison

Neither BULZ nor GDXU has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BULZ and GDXU in my portfolio?

BULZ and GDXU have a correlation of 0.29, 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 GDXU?

GDXU has higher volatility (46.45%) compared to BULZ (22.49%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BULZ dropped -94.44% vs GDXU's -94.39%.

Which ETF is better, BULZ or GDXU?

On 3-year performance, BULZ leads with 102.20% vs 46.61% for GDXU. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, BULZ has been the lower-risk option at 22.49%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BULZ or GDXU?

Over the 3-year period, BULZ has performed better with a 102.20% return vs 46.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BULZ or GDXU?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between BULZ and GDXU?

BULZ tracks Solactive FANG Innovation, while GDXU tracks S-Network MicroSectors Gold Miners Index.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BULZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.51 vs 0.53), 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.