BULZ vs. UMDD

Last updated Jul 22, 2026

BULZ (MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs) and UMDD (ProShares UltraPro MidCap400) are both Leveraged Equities funds - BULZ tracks the Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%) while UMDD tracks the S&P MidCap 400 Index (300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, BULZ returned 68.81%/yr vs 17.74%/yr for UMDD. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

BULZ vs. UMDD - 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 MidCap400 (UMDD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

As of year-to-date, both investments have demonstrated similar returns, with BULZ at 38.51% and UMDD at 38.51%.

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%

UMDD

• 1D: 3.00%
• 1M: -1.43%
• 6M: 22.31%
• YTD: 38.51%
• 1Y: 50.43%
• 3Y*: 17.74%
• 5Y*: 4.51%
• 10Y*: 11.03%
• ALL TIME*: 19.40%

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

BULZ vs. UMDD - 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%
UMDD ProShares UltraPro MidCap400	38.51%	-2.57%	19.68%	27.21%	-49.60%	14.65%

Correlation

The correlation between BULZ and UMDD is 0.53, 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	0.53
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.57
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 18, 2021	0.66

The correlation between BULZ and UMDD shifts across timeframes, from 0.53 (1 year) to 0.66 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

BULZ vs. UMDD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BULZ	UMDD
Technology	65.0%	17.2%
Communication Services	20.9%	1.5%
Consumer Cyclical	14.2%	10.5%
Financial Services	13.3%	13.9%
Basic Materials	-	4.8%
Consumer Defensive	-	3.2%
Energy	-	4.6%
Healthcare	-	9.0%
Industrials	-	25.3%
Real Estate	-	7.2%
Utilities	-	2.9%

Return for Risk

BULZ vs. UMDD — 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

UMDD

UMDD Risk / Return Rank: 45
UMDD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
UMDD Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
UMDD Omega Ratio Rank: 39
UMDD Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
UMDD Martin Ratio Rank: 51

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. UMDD - 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 MidCap400 (UMDD). 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	UMDD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.10	1.07	+0.02
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.71	1.69	+0.01
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.20	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.67	1.95	-0.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.92	6.43	-2.50

BULZ vs. UMDD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BULZ Sharpe Ratio is 1.10, which is comparable to the UMDD Sharpe Ratio of 1.07. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BULZ and UMDD, 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. UMDD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BULZ drawdown since its inception was -94.44%, which is greater than UMDD's maximum drawdown of -86.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BULZ and UMDD.

Drawdown Indicators

	BULZ	UMDD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-94.44%	-86.24%	-8.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-54.22%	-26.04%	-28.18%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-67.96%	-60.33%	-7.63%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-64.61%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-86.24%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-34.74%	-5.90%	-28.84%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-57.65%	-23.46%	-34.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	22.96%	7.87%	+15.09%

Volatility

BULZ vs. UMDD - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) has a higher volatility of 26.72% compared to ProShares UltraPro MidCap400 (UMDD) at 10.22%. This indicates that BULZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than UMDD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BULZ	UMDD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	26.72%	10.22%	+16.50%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	66.44%	35.30%	+31.14%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	82.28%	47.25%	+35.03%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	91.72%	58.69%	+33.03%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	91.72%	62.10%	+29.62%

BULZ vs. UMDD - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

BULZ vs. UMDD - Dividend Comparison

BULZ has not paid dividends to shareholders, while UMDD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.67%.

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%
UMDD ProShares UltraPro MidCap400	0.67%	1.00%	0.76%	0.19%	0.49%	0.06%	0.08%	0.64%	0.32%	0.00%	0.03%	0.06%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BULZ and UMDD in my portfolio?

BULZ and UMDD have a correlation of 0.53, 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 UMDD?

BULZ has higher volatility (26.72%) compared to UMDD (10.22%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BULZ dropped -94.44% vs UMDD's -86.24%.

Which ETF is better, BULZ or UMDD?

On 3-year performance, BULZ leads with 68.81% vs 17.74% for UMDD. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, UMDD has been the lower-risk option at 10.22%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BULZ or UMDD?

Over the 3-year period, BULZ has performed better with a 68.81% return vs 17.74%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BULZ or UMDD?

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

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

UMDD has the higher dividend yield at 0.67%, compared with 0.00% for BULZ.

What is the main difference between BULZ and UMDD?

BULZ tracks Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%), while UMDD tracks S&P MidCap 400 Index (300%). They also come from different issuers: BMO and ProShares.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BULZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.10 vs 1.07), 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.