BULZ vs. TQQQ

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BULZ (MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs) and TQQQ (ProShares UltraPro QQQ) are both Leveraged Equities funds - BULZ tracks the Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%) while TQQQ tracks the NASDAQ-100 Index (300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, BULZ returned 74.62%/yr vs 58.02%/yr for TQQQ. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

BULZ vs. TQQQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) and ProShares UltraPro QQQ (TQQQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with BULZ having a 42.05% return and TQQQ slightly lower at 41.43%.

BULZ

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

TQQQ

• 1D: -9.86%
• 1M: -4.37%
• YTD: 41.43%
• 6M: 35.75%
• 1Y: 100.69%
• 3Y*: 58.02%
• 5Y*: 21.47%
• 10Y*: 45.48%

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

BULZ vs. TQQQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BULZ MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs	42.05%	60.09%	54.09%	394.22%	-92.26%	9.17%
TQQQ ProShares UltraPro QQQ	41.43%	34.35%	58.27%	198.04%	-79.09%	24.34%

Correlation

The correlation between BULZ and TQQQ is 0.92, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.92
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 18, 2021	0.96

The correlation between BULZ and TQQQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

BULZ vs. TQQQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BULZ	TQQQ
Technology	60.8%	53.8%
Communication Services	26.2%	15.8%
Consumer Cyclical	13.0%	12.3%
Basic Materials	-	1.1%
Consumer Defensive	-	7.7%
Energy	-	0.6%
Financial Services	-	0.2%
Healthcare	-	4.2%
Industrials	-	2.8%
Real Estate	-	0.1%
Utilities	-	1.4%

Return for Risk

BULZ vs. TQQQ — 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

TQQQ

TQQQ Risk / Return Rank: 53
TQQQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
TQQQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
TQQQ Omega Ratio Rank: 49
TQQQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
TQQQ Martin Ratio Rank: 52

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. TQQQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) and ProShares UltraPro QQQ (TQQQ). 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	TQQQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.71	1.90	-0.19
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.12	2.27	-0.15
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.30	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.52	2.74	-0.22
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.50	8.72	-2.22

BULZ vs. TQQQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BULZ Sharpe Ratio is 1.71, which is comparable to the TQQQ Sharpe Ratio of 1.90. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BULZ and TQQQ, 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. TQQQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BULZ drawdown since its inception was -94.44%, which is greater than TQQQ's maximum drawdown of -81.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BULZ and TQQQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	BULZ	TQQQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-94.44%	-81.66%	-12.78%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-54.22%	-36.97%	-17.25%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-67.96%	-58.04%	-9.92%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-81.66%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-81.66%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-33.07%	-14.65%	-18.42%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-58.02%	-18.49%	-39.53%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	20.98%	11.59%	+9.39%

Volatility

BULZ vs. TQQQ - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) has a higher volatility of 35.31% compared to ProShares UltraPro QQQ (TQQQ) at 27.27%. This indicates that BULZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than TQQQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BULZ	TQQQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	35.31%	27.27%	+8.04%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	63.55%	43.35%	+20.20%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	80.03%	53.39%	+26.64%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	91.84%	67.41%	+24.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	91.84%	66.32%	+25.52%

BULZ vs. TQQQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

BULZ vs. TQQQ - Dividend Comparison

BULZ has not paid dividends to shareholders, while TQQQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.42%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%	0.00%	0.00%
TQQQ ProShares UltraPro QQQ	0.42%	0.65%	1.27%	1.26%	0.57%	0.00%	0.00%	0.06%	0.11%	0.00%	0.00%	0.01%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BULZ and TQQQ in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, BULZ and TQQQ move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, BULZ or TQQQ?

BULZ has higher volatility (35.31%) compared to TQQQ (27.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BULZ dropped -94.44% vs TQQQ's -81.66%.

Which ETF is better, BULZ or TQQQ?

On 3-year performance, BULZ leads with 74.62% vs 58.02% for TQQQ. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, TQQQ has been the lower-risk option at 27.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BULZ or TQQQ?

Over the 3-year period, BULZ has performed better with a 74.62% return vs 58.02%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BULZ or TQQQ?

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

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

TQQQ has the higher dividend yield at 0.42%, compared with 0.00% for BULZ.

What is the main difference between BULZ and TQQQ?

BULZ tracks Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%), while TQQQ tracks NASDAQ-100 Index (300%). They also come from different issuers: BMO and ProShares.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TQQQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.90 vs 1.71), 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.