BULZ vs. TMF
BULZ (MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs) and TMF (Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BULZ is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%), while TMF is a Leveraged Bonds fund tracking the ICE U.S. Treasury 20+ Year Bond Index (300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, BULZ returned 77.02%/yr vs -19.82%/yr for TMF. At a 0.04 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BULZ charges 0.95%/yr vs 1.01%/yr for TMF.
Performance
BULZ vs. TMF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BULZ achieves a 54.96% return, which is significantly higher than TMF's -5.18% return.
BULZ
- 1D
- 2.00%
- 1M
- -5.54%
- YTD
- 54.96%
- 6M
- 57.61%
- 1Y
- 174.30%
- 3Y*
- 77.02%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
TMF
- 1D
- -0.93%
- 1M
- 7.62%
- YTD
- -5.18%
- 6M
- -5.04%
- 1Y
- -1.79%
- 3Y*
- -19.82%
- 5Y*
- -31.10%
- 10Y*
- -16.87%
BULZ vs. TMF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BULZ MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs | 54.96% | 60.09% | 54.09% | 394.22% | -92.26% | 9.17% |
TMF Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF | -5.18% | -2.94% | -35.95% | -13.01% | -72.60% | -2.94% |
Correlation
The correlation between BULZ and TMF is 0.10, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.10 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.07 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 18, 2021 | 0.04 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
BULZ vs. TMF — Risk / Return Rank
BULZ
TMF
BULZ vs. TMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) and Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF (TMF). 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 | TMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +2.29 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +2.41 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.32 | 0.99 | +0.32 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.03 | -0.19 | +3.21 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.94 | -0.41 | +8.36 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BULZ vs. TMF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BULZ drawdown since its inception was -94.44%, roughly equal to the maximum TMF drawdown of -92.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BULZ and TMF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BULZ | TMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -94.44% | -92.89% | -1.55% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -54.22% | -26.51% | -27.71% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -67.96% | -56.31% | -11.65% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -88.81% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -92.89% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -26.99% | -92.15% | +65.16% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -58.18% | -43.70% | -14.48% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 20.62% | 11.96% | +8.66% |
Volatility
BULZ vs. TMF - Volatility Comparison
MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) has a higher volatility of 30.02% compared to Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF (TMF) at 8.43%. This indicates that BULZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than TMF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BULZ | TMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 30.02% | 8.43% | +21.59% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 61.86% | 19.46% | +42.40% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 77.55% | 28.49% | +49.06% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 91.54% | 46.72% | +44.82% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 91.54% | 43.92% | +47.62% |
BULZ vs. TMF - Expense Ratio Comparison
BULZ has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is lower than TMF's 1.01% expense ratio.
Dividends
BULZ vs. TMF - Dividend Comparison
BULZ has not paid dividends to shareholders, while TMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.11%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BULZ MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
TMF Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF | 4.11% | 4.06% | 4.29% | 2.82% | 1.62% | 0.13% | 2.23% | 0.94% | 1.49% | 0.41% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BULZ and TMF have a correlation of 0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
BULZ has higher volatility (30.02%) compared to TMF (8.43%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BULZ dropped -94.44% vs TMF's -92.89%.
On 3-year performance, BULZ leads with 77.02% vs -19.82% for TMF. On fees, BULZ is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, TMF has been the lower-risk option at 8.43%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, BULZ has performed better with a 77.02% return vs -19.82%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
BULZ is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.01% for TMF.
TMF has the higher dividend yield at 4.11%, compared with 0.00% for BULZ.
BULZ is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while TMF is Leveraged Bonds. BULZ tracks Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%), while TMF tracks ICE U.S. Treasury 20+ Year Bond Index (300%). They also come from different issuers: BMO and Direxion. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for BULZ and 1.01% for TMF.
BULZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.12 vs -0.17), 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.
Find the right allocation for BULZ and TMF
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer