BULZ vs. WNTR

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

BULZ (MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs) and WNTR (YieldMax Short MSTR Option Income Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BULZ is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%), while WNTR is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by YieldMax. BULZ is passively managed, while WNTR is actively managed. Over the past year, BULZ returned 98.38% vs 120.64% for WNTR. At a correlation of -0.51, they often move in opposite directions. BULZ charges 0.95%/yr vs 1.01%/yr for WNTR.

Performance

BULZ vs. WNTR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) and YieldMax Short MSTR Option Income Strategy ETF (WNTR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BULZ achieves a 38.16% return, which is significantly higher than WNTR's 10.13% return.

BULZ

• 1D: -7.41%
• 1M: -10.84%
• 6M: 28.00%
• YTD: 38.16%
• 1Y: 98.38%
• 3Y*: 65.65%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

WNTR

• 1D: 1.92%
• 1M: 18.08%
• 6M: 14.43%
• YTD: 10.13%
• 1Y: 120.64%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BULZ vs. WNTR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BULZ MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs	38.16%	112.75%
WNTR YieldMax Short MSTR Option Income Strategy ETF	10.13%	52.78%

Correlation

The correlation between BULZ and WNTR is -0.51, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.51
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 27, 2025	-0.51

The correlation between BULZ and WNTR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from -0.51 to -0.51 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

BULZ vs. WNTR — 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: 43
BULZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
BULZ Omega Ratio Rank: 44
BULZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
BULZ Martin Ratio Rank: 37

WNTR

WNTR Risk / Return Rank: 70
WNTR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
WNTR Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
WNTR Omega Ratio Rank: 72
WNTR Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
WNTR Martin Ratio Rank: 54

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. WNTR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) and YieldMax Short MSTR Option Income Strategy ETF (WNTR). 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	WNTR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.22	2.26	-1.04
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.80	2.47	-0.68
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.34	-0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.82	2.84	-1.02
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.44	7.31	-2.87

BULZ vs. WNTR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BULZ Sharpe Ratio is 1.22, which is lower than the WNTR Sharpe Ratio of 2.26. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BULZ and WNTR, 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. WNTR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BULZ drawdown since its inception was -94.44%, which is greater than WNTR's maximum drawdown of -42.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BULZ and WNTR.

Drawdown Indicators

	BULZ	WNTR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-94.44%	-42.65%	-51.79%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-54.22%	-42.65%	-11.57%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-67.96%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-34.91%	-10.15%	-24.76%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-57.75%	-20.53%	-37.22%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	22.26%	16.58%	+5.68%

Volatility

BULZ vs. WNTR - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) has a higher volatility of 29.07% compared to YieldMax Short MSTR Option Income Strategy ETF (WNTR) at 18.84%. This indicates that BULZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than WNTR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BULZ	WNTR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	29.07%	18.84%	+10.23%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	65.30%	47.46%	+17.84%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	81.12%	53.83%	+27.29%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	91.70%	53.56%	+38.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	91.70%	53.56%	+38.14%

BULZ vs. WNTR - Expense Ratio Comparison

BULZ has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is lower than WNTR's 1.01% expense ratio.

Dividends

BULZ vs. WNTR - Dividend Comparison

BULZ has not paid dividends to shareholders, while WNTR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 102.14%.

Position	TTM	2025
BULZ MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs	0.00%	0.00%
WNTR YieldMax Short MSTR Option Income Strategy ETF	102.14%	58.56%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BULZ and WNTR in my portfolio?

BULZ and WNTR have a correlation of -0.51, 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 WNTR?

BULZ has higher volatility (29.07%) compared to WNTR (18.84%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BULZ dropped -94.44% vs WNTR's -42.65%.

Which ETF is better, BULZ or WNTR?

On 1-year performance, WNTR leads with 120.64% vs 98.38% for BULZ. On fees, BULZ is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, WNTR has been the lower-risk option at 18.84%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BULZ or WNTR?

Over the 1-year period, WNTR has performed better with a 120.64% return vs 98.38%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BULZ or WNTR?

BULZ is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.01% for WNTR.

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

WNTR has the higher dividend yield at 102.14%, compared with 0.00% for BULZ.

What is the main difference between BULZ and WNTR?

BULZ is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while WNTR is Derivative Income. They also come from different issuers: BMO and YieldMax. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for BULZ and 1.01% for WNTR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

WNTR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.26 vs 1.22), 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.