BULZ vs. NVDL

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

BULZ (MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs) and NVDL (GraniteShares 2x Long NVDA Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. BULZ is passively managed, while NVDL is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, BULZ returned 62.45%/yr vs 90.39%/yr for NVDL. Their 0.72 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. BULZ charges 0.95%/yr vs 1.05%/yr for NVDL.

Performance

BULZ vs. NVDL - 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 NVDA Daily ETF (NVDL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BULZ achieves a 25.41% return, which is significantly higher than NVDL's 6.22% return.

BULZ

• 1D: 10.00%
• 1M: -9.61%
• 6M: 24.24%
• YTD: 25.41%
• 1Y: 91.64%
• 3Y*: 62.45%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 5.31%

NVDL

• 1D: 5.91%
• 1M: 10.42%
• 6M: 8.76%
• YTD: 6.22%
• 1Y: 11.79%
• 3Y*: 90.39%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 138.82%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BULZ MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs	$25.71M	$28.40M	$43.12M
NVDL GraniteShares 2x Long NVDA Daily ETF	$355.76M	$397.97M	$691.00M

BULZ vs. NVDL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
BULZ MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs	25.41%	60.09%	54.09%	394.22%	-22.13%
NVDL GraniteShares 2x Long NVDA Daily ETF	6.22%	32.57%	344.58%	432.18%	-28.71%

Correlation

The correlation between BULZ and NVDL is 0.65, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.65
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.71
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 13, 2022	0.72

The correlation between BULZ and NVDL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.65 to 0.72 - a consistent structural relationship.

BULZ vs. NVDL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BULZ	NVDL
Technology	65.0%	100.0%
Communication Services	20.9%	0.0%
Consumer Cyclical	14.2%	0.0%
Financial Services	13.3%	100.0%
Basic Materials	-	0.0%
Consumer Defensive	-	0.0%
Energy	-	0.0%
Healthcare	-	0.0%
Industrials	-	0.0%
Real Estate	-	0.0%
Utilities	-	0.0%

Return for Risk

BULZ vs. NVDL — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

BULZ

BULZ Risk / Return Rank: 43
BULZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
BULZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
BULZ Omega Ratio Rank: 45
BULZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
BULZ Martin Ratio Rank: 36

NVDL

NVDL Risk / Return Rank: 17
NVDL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 14
NVDL Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
NVDL Omega Ratio Rank: 21
NVDL Calmar Ratio Rank: 16
NVDL Martin Ratio Rank: 15

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

BULZ vs. NVDL - 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 NVDA Daily ETF (NVDL). 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	NVDL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.08	0.16	+0.91
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.73	0.75	+0.98
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.09	+0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.67	0.28	+1.39
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.75	0.54	+3.20

BULZ vs. NVDL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BULZ Sharpe Ratio is 1.08, which is higher than the NVDL Sharpe Ratio of 0.16. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BULZ and NVDL, 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. NVDL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BULZ drawdown since its inception was -94.44%, which is greater than NVDL's maximum drawdown of -67.55%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BULZ and NVDL.

Drawdown Indicators

	BULZ	NVDL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-94.44%	-67.55%	-26.89%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-55.29%	-42.23%	-13.06%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-67.96%	-67.55%	-0.41%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-40.91%	-27.56%	-13.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-57.56%	-17.46%	-40.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	24.55%	21.70%	+2.85%

Volatility

BULZ vs. NVDL - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) has a higher volatility of 32.71% compared to GraniteShares 2x Long NVDA Daily ETF (NVDL) at 24.44%. This indicates that BULZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than NVDL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BULZ	NVDL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	32.71%	24.44%	+8.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	70.17%	56.61%	+13.56%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	85.84%	72.68%	+13.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	92.15%	90.02%	+2.13%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	92.15%	90.02%	+2.13%

BULZ vs. NVDL - Expense Ratio Comparison

BULZ has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is lower than NVDL's 1.05% expense ratio.

Dividends

BULZ vs. NVDL - Dividend Comparison

Neither BULZ nor NVDL has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BULZ MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
NVDL GraniteShares 2x Long NVDA Daily ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	11.29%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BULZ and NVDL in my portfolio?

BULZ and NVDL have a correlation of 0.65, 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 NVDL?

BULZ has higher volatility (32.71%) compared to NVDL (24.44%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BULZ dropped -94.44% vs NVDL's -67.55%.

Which ETF is better, BULZ or NVDL?

On 3-year performance, NVDL leads with 90.39% vs 62.45% for BULZ. On fees, BULZ is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, NVDL has been the lower-risk option at 24.44%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BULZ or NVDL?

Over the 3-year period, NVDL has performed better with a 90.39% return vs 62.45%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BULZ or NVDL?

BULZ is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.05% for NVDL.

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

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

What is the main difference between BULZ and NVDL?

They also come from different issuers: BMO and GraniteShares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for BULZ and 1.05% for NVDL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BULZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.08 vs 0.16), 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.