BULZ vs. NEMG

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BULZ (MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs) and NEMG (Leverage Shares 2x Long NEM Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. BULZ is passively managed, while NEMG is actively managed. At a 0.41 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BULZ charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for NEMG.

Performance

BULZ vs. NEMG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) and Leverage Shares 2x Long NEM Daily ETF (NEMG). 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 higher than NEMG's -20.44% return.

BULZ

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

NEMG

• 1D: -7.98%
• 1M: -20.02%
• YTD: -20.44%
• 6M: -28.94%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BULZ vs. NEMG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BULZ MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs	42.05%	0.87%
NEMG Leverage Shares 2x Long NEM Daily ETF	-20.44%	22.87%

Correlation

The correlation between BULZ and NEMG is 0.41, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 17, 2025	0.41

Return for Risk

BULZ vs. NEMG — 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

NEMG

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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. NEMG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) and Leverage Shares 2x Long NEM Daily ETF (NEMG). 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	NEMG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.71	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.12	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.52	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.50	—	—

Drawdowns

BULZ vs. NEMG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BULZ drawdown since its inception was -94.44%, which is greater than NEMG's maximum drawdown of -57.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BULZ and NEMG.

Drawdown Indicators

	BULZ	NEMG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-94.44%	-57.56%	-36.88%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-54.22%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-67.96%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-33.07%	-53.44%	+20.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-58.02%	-23.21%	-34.81%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	20.98%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	BULZ	NEMG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	35.31%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	63.55%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	80.03%	102.63%	-22.60%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	91.84%	102.63%	-10.79%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	91.84%	102.63%	-10.79%

BULZ vs. NEMG - Expense Ratio Comparison

BULZ has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than NEMG's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

BULZ vs. NEMG - Dividend Comparison

Neither BULZ nor NEMG has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BULZ and NEMG in my portfolio?

BULZ and NEMG have a correlation of 0.41, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, BULZ or NEMG?

On fees, NEMG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, BULZ or NEMG?

NEMG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BULZ.

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

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

What is the main difference between BULZ and NEMG?

They also come from different issuers: BMO and Leverage Shares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for BULZ and 0.75% for NEMG.