BULZ vs. HIBL

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

BULZ (MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN) and HIBL (Direxion Daily S&P 500 High Beta Bull 3X Shares) are both Leveraged Equities funds - BULZ tracks the Solactive FANG Innovation while HIBL tracks the S&P 500 High Beta Index (300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, BULZ returned 77.02%/yr vs 49.52%/yr for HIBL. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BULZ charges 0.95%/yr vs 1.12%/yr for HIBL.

Performance

BULZ vs. HIBL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (BULZ) and Direxion Daily S&P 500 High Beta Bull 3X Shares (HIBL). 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 lower than HIBL's 80.33% return.

BULZ

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

HIBL

• 1D: 4.55%
• 1M: 15.37%
• YTD: 80.33%
• 6M: 73.92%
• 1Y: 226.21%
• 3Y*: 49.52%
• 5Y*: 10.57%
• 10Y*: —

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

BULZ vs. HIBL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BULZ MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN	54.96%	60.09%	54.09%	394.22%	-92.26%	9.17%
HIBL Direxion Daily S&P 500 High Beta Bull 3X Shares	80.33%	60.38%	-0.40%	81.02%	-68.24%	26.76%

Correlation

The correlation between BULZ and HIBL is 0.78, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.78
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 18, 2021	0.85

The correlation between BULZ and HIBL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

BULZ vs. HIBL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BULZ	HIBL
Technology	62.3%	45.8%
Communication Services	25.0%	3.7%
Consumer Cyclical	12.8%	12.9%
Basic Materials	-	4.6%
Consumer Defensive	-	0.6%
Energy	-	2.2%
Financial Services	-	12.5%
Healthcare	-	2.9%
Industrials	-	11.7%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	3.2%

Return for Risk

BULZ vs. HIBL — 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

HIBL

HIBL Risk / Return Rank: 88
HIBL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
HIBL Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
HIBL Omega Ratio Rank: 78
HIBL Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
HIBL Martin Ratio Rank: 95

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. HIBL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (BULZ) and Direxion Daily S&P 500 High Beta Bull 3X Shares (HIBL). 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	HIBL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.12	3.19	-1.07
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.36	3.01	-0.64
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.40	-0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.03	7.25	-4.23
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.94	25.38	-17.43

BULZ vs. HIBL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BULZ Sharpe Ratio is 2.12, which is lower than the HIBL Sharpe Ratio of 3.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BULZ and HIBL, 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. HIBL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BULZ drawdown since its inception was -94.44%, which is greater than HIBL's maximum drawdown of -88.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BULZ and HIBL.

Drawdown Indicators

	BULZ	HIBL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-94.44%	-88.27%	-6.17%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-54.22%	-31.39%	-22.83%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-67.96%	-69.66%	+1.70%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-81.58%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-26.99%	-10.19%	-16.80%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-58.18%	-44.05%	-14.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	20.62%	8.96%	+11.66%

Volatility

BULZ vs. HIBL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (BULZ) is 30.02%, while Direxion Daily S&P 500 High Beta Bull 3X Shares (HIBL) has a volatility of 34.70%. This indicates that BULZ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than HIBL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BULZ	HIBL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	30.02%	34.70%	-4.68%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	61.86%	57.54%	+4.32%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	77.55%	71.43%	+6.12%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	91.54%	83.04%	+8.50%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	91.54%	92.32%	-0.78%

BULZ vs. HIBL - Expense Ratio Comparison

BULZ has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is lower than HIBL's 1.12% expense ratio.

Dividends

BULZ vs. HIBL - Dividend Comparison

BULZ has not paid dividends to shareholders, while HIBL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.28%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
BULZ MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
HIBL Direxion Daily S&P 500 High Beta Bull 3X Shares	1.28%	2.43%	0.82%	0.69%	0.00%	0.06%	0.19%	0.19%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BULZ and HIBL in my portfolio?

BULZ and HIBL have a correlation of 0.78, 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 HIBL?

HIBL has higher volatility (34.70%) compared to BULZ (30.02%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BULZ dropped -94.44% vs HIBL's -88.27%.

Which ETF is better, BULZ or HIBL?

On 3-year performance, BULZ leads with 77.02% vs 49.52% for HIBL. On fees, BULZ is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, BULZ has been the lower-risk option at 30.02%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BULZ or HIBL?

Over the 3-year period, BULZ has performed better with a 77.02% return vs 49.52%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BULZ or HIBL?

BULZ is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.12% for HIBL.

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

HIBL has the higher dividend yield at 1.28%, compared with 0.00% for BULZ.

What is the main difference between BULZ and HIBL?

BULZ tracks Solactive FANG Innovation, while HIBL tracks S&P 500 High Beta Index (300%). They also come from different issuers: BMO and Direxion. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for BULZ and 1.12% for HIBL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

HIBL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.19 vs 2.12), 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.