CURE vs. BULZ

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

CURE (Direxion Daily Healthcare Bull 3x Shares) and BULZ (MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN) are both Leveraged Equities funds - CURE tracks the Health Care Select Sector Index (300%) while BULZ tracks the Solactive FANG Innovation. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CURE returned 3.05%/yr vs 77.02%/yr for BULZ. At a 0.34 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CURE charges 1.08%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for BULZ.

Performance

CURE vs. BULZ - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CURE achieves a -7.96% return, which is significantly lower than BULZ's 54.96% return.

CURE

• 1D: -0.55%
• 1M: 13.53%
• YTD: -7.96%
• 6M: -6.00%
• 1Y: 26.46%
• 3Y*: 3.05%
• 5Y*: 1.51%
• 10Y*: 13.49%

BULZ

• 1D: 2.00%
• 1M: -11.00%
• YTD: 54.96%
• 6M: 57.61%
• 1Y: 163.08%
• 3Y*: 77.02%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CURE vs. BULZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CURE Direxion Daily Healthcare Bull 3x Shares	-7.96%	22.55%	-8.47%	-9.40%	-20.51%	9.17%
BULZ MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN	54.96%	60.09%	54.09%	394.22%	-92.26%	9.17%

Correlation

The correlation between CURE and BULZ is 0.04, 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	0.04
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.18
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 18, 2021	0.34

Over the past year, the correlation between CURE and BULZ has dropped to 0.04 - well below their long-term average of 0.34, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

CURE vs. BULZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CURE	BULZ
Healthcare	100.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	25.0%
Consumer Cyclical	-	12.8%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	62.3%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

CURE vs. BULZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

CURE

CURE Risk / Return Rank: 21
CURE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 20
CURE Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
CURE Omega Ratio Rank: 22
CURE Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
CURE Martin Ratio Rank: 19

BULZ

BULZ Risk / Return Rank: 63
BULZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
BULZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
BULZ Omega Ratio Rank: 59
BULZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
BULZ Martin Ratio Rank: 53

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.

CURE vs. BULZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Direxion Daily Healthcare Bull 3x Shares (CURE) and MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (BULZ). 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.

	CURE	BULZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.60	2.12	-1.52
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.18	2.36	-1.18
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	1.32	-0.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.85	3.03	-2.17
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.94	7.94	-6.01

CURE vs. BULZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CURE Sharpe Ratio is 0.60, which is lower than the BULZ Sharpe Ratio of 2.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CURE and BULZ, 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

CURE vs. BULZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CURE drawdown since its inception was -69.19%, smaller than the maximum BULZ drawdown of -94.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CURE and BULZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	CURE	BULZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-69.19%	-94.44%	+25.25%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-31.10%	-54.22%	+23.12%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-51.93%	-67.96%	+16.03%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-52.23%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-69.19%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-26.94%	-26.99%	+0.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.16%	-58.18%	+40.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	13.71%	20.62%	-6.91%

Volatility

CURE vs. BULZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Direxion Daily Healthcare Bull 3x Shares (CURE) is 14.30%, while MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (BULZ) has a volatility of 30.02%. This indicates that CURE experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BULZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CURE	BULZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.30%	30.02%	-15.72%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	30.87%	61.86%	-30.99%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	44.32%	77.55%	-33.23%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	43.84%	91.54%	-47.70%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	49.59%	91.54%	-41.95%

CURE vs. BULZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

CURE has a 1.08% expense ratio, which is higher than BULZ's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

CURE vs. BULZ - Dividend Comparison

CURE's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.16%, while BULZ has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
BULZ MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
CURE Direxion Daily Healthcare Bull 3x Shares	1.16%	1.12%	1.17%	2.02%	0.38%	0.02%	0.17%	0.40%	0.70%	0.18%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CURE and BULZ in my portfolio?

CURE and BULZ have a correlation of 0.04, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CURE or BULZ?

BULZ has higher volatility (30.02%) compared to CURE (14.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CURE dropped -69.19% vs BULZ's -94.44%.

Which ETF is better, CURE or BULZ?

On 3-year performance, BULZ leads with 77.02% vs 3.05% for CURE. On fees, BULZ is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, CURE has been the lower-risk option at 14.30%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CURE or BULZ?

Over the 3-year period, BULZ has performed better with a 77.02% return vs 3.05%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CURE or BULZ?

BULZ is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.08% for CURE.

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

CURE has the higher dividend yield at 1.16%, compared with 0.00% for BULZ.

What is the main difference between CURE and BULZ?

CURE tracks Health Care Select Sector Index (300%), while BULZ tracks Solactive FANG Innovation. They also come from different issuers: Direxion and BMO. Their fees differ too: 1.08% for CURE and 0.95% for BULZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BULZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.12 vs 0.60), 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.