PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
BULZ vs. HDV
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

BULZ vs. HDV

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BULZ (MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs) and HDV (iShares Core High Dividend ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BULZ is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%), while HDV is a Dividend fund tracking the Morningstar Dividend Yield Focus Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, BULZ returned 74.62%/yr vs 15.48%/yr for HDV. At a 0.23 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BULZ charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for HDV.

Performance

BULZ vs. HDV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) and iShares Core High Dividend ETF (HDV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BULZ achieves a 42.05% return, which is significantly higher than HDV's 14.07% return.

BULZ

1D
-11.88%
1M
-15.57%
YTD
42.05%
6M
35.20%
1Y
135.83%
3Y*
74.62%
5Y*
—
10Y*
—

HDV

1D
1.33%
1M
-1.35%
YTD
14.07%
6M
14.08%
1Y
21.06%
3Y*
15.48%
5Y*
11.09%
10Y*
9.45%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

BULZ vs. HDV - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
BULZ
MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs		42.05%60.09%54.09%394.22%-92.26%9.17%
HDV
iShares Core High Dividend ETF		14.07%11.90%14.16%1.72%7.05%4.85%

Correlation

The correlation between BULZ and HDV is -0.19, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.19

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.00

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 18, 2021

0.23

The correlation between BULZ and HDV shifts across timeframes, from -0.19 (1 year) to 0.23 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

BULZ vs. HDV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
BULZ
HDV

Technology

60.8%
0.2%

Communication Services

26.2%
5.7%

Consumer Cyclical

13.0%
9.2%

Basic Materials

-

0.8%

Consumer Defensive

-

24.5%

Energy

-

20.2%

Financial Services

-

4.7%

Healthcare

-

22.6%

Industrials

-

3.5%

Real Estate

-

-

Utilities

-

8.1%

Technology

BULZ
60.8%
HDV
0.2%

Communication Services

BULZ
26.2%
HDV
5.7%

Consumer Cyclical

BULZ
13.0%
HDV
9.2%

Basic Materials

BULZ

-

HDV
0.8%

Consumer Defensive

BULZ

-

HDV
24.5%

Energy

BULZ

-

HDV
20.2%

Financial Services

BULZ

-

HDV
4.7%

Healthcare

BULZ

-

HDV
22.6%

Industrials

BULZ

-

HDV
3.5%

Real Estate

BULZ

-

HDV

-

Utilities

BULZ

-

HDV
8.1%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs

iShares Core High Dividend ETF

Often compared with BULZ:
BULZ vs. FNGUBULZ vs. SOXLBULZ vs. TECLBULZ vs. TQQQBULZ vs. BERZBULZ vs. FNGOBULZ vs. SMCI
Often compared with HDV:
HDV vs. SCHDHDV vs. VYMHDV vs. SPYDHDV vs. DGROHDV vs. DVYHDV vs. VIGHDV vs. SPY

Return for Risk

BULZ vs. HDV — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
BULZ
BULZ Risk / Return Rank: 4747
Overall Rank
BULZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5252
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BULZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 4444
Sortino Ratio Rank
BULZ Omega Ratio Rank: 4545
Omega Ratio Rank
BULZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 5353
Calmar Ratio Rank
BULZ Martin Ratio Rank: 4242
Martin Ratio Rank
HDV
HDV Risk / Return Rank: 7070
Overall Rank
HDV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6868
Sharpe Ratio Rank
HDV Sortino Ratio Rank: 7373
Sortino Ratio Rank
HDV Omega Ratio Rank: 6262
Omega Ratio Rank
HDV Calmar Ratio Rank: 8181
Calmar Ratio Rank
HDV Martin Ratio Rank: 6464
Martin Ratio Rank
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. HDV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) and iShares Core High Dividend ETF (HDV). 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.

BULZHDVDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.71
2.13

-0.42

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.12
3.13

-1.01

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.28

1.36

-0.08

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.52

4.09

-1.57

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

6.50

11.19

-4.69

BULZ vs. HDV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BULZ Sharpe Ratio is 1.71, which is comparable to the HDV Sharpe Ratio of 2.13. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BULZ and HDV, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

BULZ vs. HDV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BULZ drawdown since its inception was -94.44%, which is greater than HDV's maximum drawdown of -37.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BULZ and HDV.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

BULZHDVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-94.44%

-37.04%

-57.40%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-54.22%

-5.18%

-49.04%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-67.96%

-10.49%

-57.47%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

—

-15.42%

—

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-37.04%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-33.07%

-1.35%

-31.72%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-58.02%

-3.08%

-54.94%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

20.98%

1.89%

+19.09%

Volatility

BULZ vs. HDV - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) has a higher volatility of 35.31% compared to iShares Core High Dividend ETF (HDV) at 3.64%. This indicates that BULZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than HDV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

BULZHDVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

35.31%

3.64%

+31.67%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

63.55%

7.61%

+55.94%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

80.03%

9.93%

+70.10%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

91.84%

12.81%

+79.03%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

91.84%

15.73%

+76.11%

BULZ vs. HDV - Expense Ratio Comparison

BULZ has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than HDV's 0.08% expense ratio.

Dividends

BULZ vs. HDV - Dividend Comparison

BULZ has not paid dividends to shareholders, while HDV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.90%.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%0.00%0.00%
HDV
iShares Core High Dividend ETF		2.90%3.22%3.67%3.82%3.56%3.47%4.07%3.27%3.67%3.27%3.28%3.92%

Frequently Asked Questions

BULZ and HDV have a correlation of -0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

BULZ has higher volatility (35.31%) compared to HDV (3.64%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BULZ dropped -94.44% vs HDV's -37.04%.

On 3-year performance, BULZ leads with 74.62% vs 15.48% for HDV. On fees, HDV is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, HDV has been the lower-risk option at 3.64%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 3-year period, BULZ has performed better with a 74.62% return vs 15.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

HDV is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BULZ.

HDV has the higher dividend yield at 2.90%, compared with 0.00% for BULZ.

BULZ is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while HDV is Dividend. BULZ tracks Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%), while HDV tracks Morningstar Dividend Yield Focus Index. They also come from different issuers: BMO and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for BULZ and 0.08% for HDV.

HDV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.13 vs 1.71), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for BULZ and HDV

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer