BULZ vs. MVLL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BULZ (MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN) and MVLL (GraniteShares 2x Long MRVL Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds - BULZ tracks the Solactive FANG Innovation while MVLL tracks the Marvell Technology Inc. (MRVL). Both are passively managed. Over the past year, BULZ returned 258.75% vs 1215.17% for MVLL. A 0.58 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BULZ charges 0.95%/yr vs 1.50%/yr for MVLL.

Performance

BULZ vs. MVLL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (BULZ) and GraniteShares 2x Long MRVL Daily ETF (MVLL). 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 lower than MVLL's 842.68% return.

BULZ

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

MVLL

• 1D: 7.14%
• 1M: 201.84%
• YTD: 842.68%
• 6M: 558.01%
• 1Y: 1,215.17%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BULZ vs. MVLL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BULZ MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN	100.89%	108.73%
MVLL GraniteShares 2x Long MRVL Daily ETF	842.68%	-10.19%

Correlation

The correlation between BULZ and MVLL is 0.51, 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	0.51
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 10, 2025	0.58

The correlation between BULZ and MVLL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.51 to 0.58 - a consistent structural relationship.

BULZ vs. MVLL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BULZ	MVLL
Technology	62.3%	66.6%
Communication Services	25.0%	-
Consumer Cyclical	12.8%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

BULZ vs. MVLL — 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

MVLL

MVLL Risk / Return Rank: 96
MVLL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
MVLL Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
MVLL Omega Ratio Rank: 92
MVLL Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
MVLL Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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. MVLL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (BULZ) and GraniteShares 2x Long MRVL Daily ETF (MVLL). 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	MVLL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.51	9.23	-5.72
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.13	4.79	-1.67
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.63	-0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.81	25.11	-20.31
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.88	52.27	-39.39
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. MVLL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BULZ Sharpe Ratio is 3.51, which is lower than the MVLL Sharpe Ratio of 9.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BULZ and MVLL, 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	MVLL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.51	9.23	-5.72
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.19	3.33	-3.14

Drawdowns

BULZ vs. MVLL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BULZ drawdown since its inception was -94.44%, which is greater than MVLL's maximum drawdown of -59.02%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BULZ and MVLL.

Drawdown Indicators

	BULZ	MVLL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-94.44%	-59.02%	-35.42%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-54.22%	-48.93%	-5.29%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-67.96%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.35%	0.00%	-5.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-58.42%	-22.42%	-36.00%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	20.19%	23.46%	-3.27%

Volatility

BULZ vs. MVLL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (BULZ) is 22.49%, while GraniteShares 2x Long MRVL Daily ETF (MVLL) has a volatility of 60.78%. This indicates that BULZ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MVLL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BULZ	MVLL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	22.49%	60.78%	-38.29%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	56.86%	96.08%	-39.22%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	74.35%	133.11%	-58.76%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	91.23%	139.63%	-48.40%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	91.23%	139.63%	-48.40%

BULZ vs. MVLL - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

BULZ vs. MVLL - Dividend Comparison

Neither BULZ nor MVLL has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BULZ and MVLL in my portfolio?

BULZ and MVLL have a correlation of 0.51, 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 MVLL?

MVLL has higher volatility (60.78%) compared to BULZ (22.49%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BULZ dropped -94.44% vs MVLL's -59.02%.

Which ETF is better, BULZ or MVLL?

On 1-year performance, MVLL leads with 1215.17% vs 258.75% for BULZ. On fees, BULZ is cheaper at 0.95% per year. 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 MVLL?

Over the 1-year period, MVLL has performed better with a 1215.17% return vs 258.75%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BULZ or MVLL?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between BULZ and MVLL?

BULZ tracks Solactive FANG Innovation, while MVLL tracks Marvell Technology Inc. (MRVL). They also come from different issuers: BMO and GraniteShares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for BULZ and 1.50% for MVLL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MVLL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (9.23 vs 3.51), 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.