BULZ vs. INTW

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BULZ (MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs) and INTW (GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. BULZ is passively managed, while INTW is actively managed. Over the past year, BULZ returned 135.83% vs 1964.55% for INTW. A 0.55 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BULZ charges 0.95%/yr vs 1.50%/yr for INTW.

Performance

BULZ vs. INTW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) and GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BULZ achieves a 42.05% return, which is significantly lower than INTW's 750.22% return.

BULZ

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

INTW

• 1D: -12.49%
• 1M: 12.21%
• YTD: 750.22%
• 6M: 775.58%
• 1Y: 1,964.55%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BULZ vs. INTW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BULZ MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs	42.05%	40.23%
INTW GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF	750.22%	60.89%

Correlation

The correlation between BULZ and INTW is 0.54, 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	0.54
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 13, 2025	0.55

The correlation between BULZ and INTW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.54 to 0.55 - a consistent structural relationship.

BULZ vs. INTW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BULZ	INTW
Technology	60.8%	66.7%
Communication Services	26.2%	-
Consumer Cyclical	13.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

BULZ vs. INTW — Risk / Return Rank

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

BULZ

BULZ Risk / Return Rank: 47
BULZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
BULZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
BULZ Omega Ratio Rank: 45
BULZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
BULZ Martin Ratio Rank: 42

INTW

INTW Risk / Return Rank: 98
INTW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
INTW Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
INTW Omega Ratio Rank: 94
INTW Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
INTW Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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. INTW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) and GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW). 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	INTW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.71	13.25	-11.54
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.12	5.13	-3.01
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.65	-0.37
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.52	40.32	-37.80
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.50	91.49	-84.99

BULZ vs. INTW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BULZ Sharpe Ratio is 1.71, which is lower than the INTW Sharpe Ratio of 13.25. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BULZ and INTW, 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. INTW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BULZ drawdown since its inception was -94.44%, which is greater than INTW's maximum drawdown of -60.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BULZ and INTW.

Drawdown Indicators

	BULZ	INTW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-94.44%	-60.58%	-33.86%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-54.22%	-49.34%	-4.88%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-67.96%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-33.07%	-12.49%	-20.58%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-58.02%	-29.66%	-28.36%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	20.98%	21.70%	-0.72%

Volatility

BULZ vs. INTW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) is 35.31%, while GraniteShares 2x Long INTC Daily ETF (INTW) has a volatility of 55.81%. This indicates that BULZ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than INTW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BULZ	INTW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	35.31%	55.81%	-20.50%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	63.55%	119.10%	-55.55%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	80.03%	150.14%	-70.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	91.84%	148.88%	-57.04%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	91.84%	148.88%	-57.04%

BULZ vs. INTW - Expense Ratio Comparison

BULZ has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is lower than INTW's 1.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

BULZ vs. INTW - Dividend Comparison

Neither BULZ nor INTW has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BULZ and INTW in my portfolio?

BULZ and INTW have a correlation of 0.54, 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 INTW?

INTW has higher volatility (55.81%) compared to BULZ (35.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BULZ dropped -94.44% vs INTW's -60.58%.

Which ETF is better, BULZ or INTW?

On 1-year performance, INTW leads with 1964.55% vs 135.83% for BULZ. On fees, BULZ is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, BULZ has been the lower-risk option at 35.31%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BULZ or INTW?

Over the 1-year period, INTW has performed better with a 1964.55% return vs 135.83%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BULZ or INTW?

BULZ is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for INTW.

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

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

What is the main difference between BULZ and INTW?

They also come from different issuers: BMO and GraniteShares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for BULZ and 1.50% for INTW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

INTW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (13.25 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.