BULZ vs. TNA

Last updated Jul 22, 2026

BULZ (MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs) and TNA (Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares) are both Leveraged Equities funds - BULZ tracks the Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%) while TNA tracks the Russell 2000 Index (300% Daily). Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, BULZ returned 68.81%/yr vs 23.50%/yr for TNA. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BULZ charges 0.95%/yr vs 1.05%/yr for TNA.

Performance

BULZ vs. TNA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) and Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares (TNA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BULZ achieves a 38.51% return, which is significantly lower than TNA's 57.68% return.

BULZ

• 1D: 10.04%
• 1M: -16.61%
• 6M: 40.54%
• YTD: 38.51%
• 1Y: 89.80%
• 3Y*: 68.81%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 7.50%

TNA

• 1D: 4.26%
• 1M: 0.01%
• 6M: 31.11%
• YTD: 57.68%
• 1Y: 100.85%
• 3Y*: 23.50%
• 5Y*: -2.25%
• 10Y*: 7.49%
• ALL TIME*: 14.73%

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

BULZ vs. TNA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BULZ MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs	38.51%	60.09%	54.09%	394.22%	-92.26%	9.17%
TNA Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares	57.68%	9.82%	7.21%	26.24%	-62.48%	4.95%

Correlation

The correlation between BULZ and TNA is 0.62, 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	0.62
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.60
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 18, 2021	0.69

The correlation between BULZ and TNA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.60 to 0.69 - a consistent structural relationship.

BULZ vs. TNA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BULZ	TNA
Technology	65.0%	14.8%
Communication Services	20.9%	2.2%
Consumer Cyclical	14.2%	9.2%
Financial Services	13.3%	17.5%
Basic Materials	-	4.4%
Consumer Defensive	-	2.6%
Energy	-	5.5%
Healthcare	-	20.3%
Industrials	-	14.2%
Real Estate	-	6.6%
Utilities	-	2.7%

Return for Risk

BULZ vs. TNA — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

BULZ

BULZ Risk / Return Rank: 42
BULZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
BULZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
BULZ Omega Ratio Rank: 44
BULZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
BULZ Martin Ratio Rank: 36

TNA

TNA Risk / Return Rank: 71
TNA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
TNA Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
TNA Omega Ratio Rank: 59
TNA Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
TNA Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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. TNA - 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 Small Cap Bull 3X Shares (TNA). 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	TNA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.10	1.76	-0.66
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.71	2.31	-0.60
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.27	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.67	3.12	-1.45
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.92	10.19	-6.26

BULZ vs. TNA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BULZ Sharpe Ratio is 1.10, which is lower than the TNA Sharpe Ratio of 1.76. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BULZ and TNA, 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. TNA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BULZ drawdown since its inception was -94.44%, which is greater than TNA's maximum drawdown of -88.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BULZ and TNA.

Drawdown Indicators

	BULZ	TNA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-94.44%	-88.09%	-6.35%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-54.22%	-32.53%	-21.69%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-67.96%	-65.78%	-2.18%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-82.36%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-88.09%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-34.74%	-33.31%	-1.43%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-57.65%	-33.92%	-23.73%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	22.96%	9.94%	+13.02%

Volatility

BULZ vs. TNA - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) has a higher volatility of 26.72% compared to Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares (TNA) at 10.13%. This indicates that BULZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than TNA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BULZ	TNA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	26.72%	10.13%	+16.59%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	66.44%	42.46%	+23.98%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	82.28%	57.79%	+24.49%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	91.72%	67.23%	+24.49%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	91.72%	68.34%	+23.38%

BULZ vs. TNA - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

BULZ vs. TNA - Dividend Comparison

BULZ has not paid dividends to shareholders, while TNA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.29%.

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%
TNA Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares	0.29%	0.78%	0.93%	1.27%	0.31%	0.06%	0.03%	0.44%	0.36%	0.15%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BULZ and TNA in my portfolio?

BULZ and TNA have a correlation of 0.62, 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 TNA?

BULZ has higher volatility (26.72%) compared to TNA (10.13%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BULZ dropped -94.44% vs TNA's -88.09%.

Which ETF is better, BULZ or TNA?

On 3-year performance, BULZ leads with 68.81% vs 23.50% for TNA. On fees, BULZ is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, TNA has been the lower-risk option at 10.13%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BULZ or TNA?

Over the 3-year period, BULZ has performed better with a 68.81% return vs 23.50%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BULZ or TNA?

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

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

TNA has the higher dividend yield at 0.29%, compared with 0.00% for BULZ.

What is the main difference between BULZ and TNA?

BULZ tracks Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%), while TNA tracks Russell 2000 Index (300% Daily). They also come from different issuers: BMO and Direxion. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for BULZ and 1.05% for TNA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TNA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.76 vs 1.10), 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.