BULZ vs. NRGU

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BULZ (MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN) and NRGU (MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN) are both Leveraged Equities funds from BMO - BULZ tracks the Solactive FANG Innovation while NRGU tracks the Solactive MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index (-300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past year, BULZ returned 258.75% vs 156.99% for NRGU. At a 0.06 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

BULZ vs. NRGU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (BULZ) and MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN (NRGU). 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 NRGU's 129.31% return.

BULZ

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

NRGU

• 1D: 2.53%
• 1M: -6.67%
• YTD: 129.31%
• 6M: 97.01%
• 1Y: 156.99%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BULZ vs. NRGU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BULZ MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN	100.89%	36.86%
NRGU MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN	129.31%	-33.00%

Correlation

The correlation between BULZ and NRGU is -0.11, 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	-0.11
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 21, 2025	0.06

The correlation between BULZ and NRGU shifts across timeframes, from -0.11 (1 year) to 0.06 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

BULZ vs. NRGU - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BULZ	NRGU
Technology	62.3%	-
Communication Services	25.0%	-
Consumer Cyclical	12.8%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	100.0%
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

BULZ vs. NRGU — 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

NRGU

NRGU Risk / Return Rank: 58
NRGU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
NRGU Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
NRGU Omega Ratio Rank: 48
NRGU Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
NRGU Martin Ratio Rank: 56

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. NRGU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (BULZ) and MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN (NRGU). 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	NRGU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.51	2.11	+1.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.13	2.43	+0.70
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.30	+0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.81	3.95	+0.85
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.88	9.88	+3.00
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. NRGU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BULZ Sharpe Ratio is 3.51, which is higher than the NRGU Sharpe Ratio of 2.11. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BULZ and NRGU, 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	NRGU	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.51	2.11	+1.40
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.19	0.45	-0.26

Drawdowns

BULZ vs. NRGU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BULZ drawdown since its inception was -94.44%, which is greater than NRGU's maximum drawdown of -57.50%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BULZ and NRGU.

Drawdown Indicators

	BULZ	NRGU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-94.44%	-57.50%	-36.94%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-54.22%	-39.95%	-14.27%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-67.96%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.35%	-20.91%	+15.56%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-58.42%	-25.42%	-33.00%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	20.19%	15.96%	+4.23%

Volatility

BULZ vs. NRGU - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (BULZ) is 22.49%, while MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN (NRGU) has a volatility of 31.63%. This indicates that BULZ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NRGU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BULZ	NRGU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	22.49%	31.63%	-9.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	56.86%	61.27%	-4.41%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	74.35%	75.15%	-0.80%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	91.23%	89.15%	+2.08%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	91.23%	89.15%	+2.08%

BULZ vs. NRGU - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both BULZ and NRGU have an expense ratio of 0.95%.

Dividends

BULZ vs. NRGU - Dividend Comparison

Neither BULZ nor NRGU has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BULZ and NRGU in my portfolio?

BULZ and NRGU have a correlation of -0.11, 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 NRGU?

NRGU has higher volatility (31.63%) compared to BULZ (22.49%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BULZ dropped -94.44% vs NRGU's -57.50%.

Which ETF is better, BULZ or NRGU?

On 1-year performance, BULZ leads with 258.75% vs 156.99% for NRGU. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. 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 NRGU?

Over the 1-year period, BULZ has performed better with a 258.75% return vs 156.99%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BULZ or NRGU?

BULZ and NRGU have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.

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

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

What is the main difference between BULZ and NRGU?

BULZ tracks Solactive FANG Innovation, while NRGU tracks Solactive MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index (-300%).

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BULZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.51 vs 2.11), 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.