DRAM vs. BULZ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

DRAM (Roundhill Memory ETF) and BULZ (MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - DRAM is a Technology Equities fund actively managed by Roundhill, while BULZ is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Solactive FANG Innovation. DRAM is actively managed, while BULZ is passively managed. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. DRAM charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for BULZ.

Performance

DRAM vs. BULZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Roundhill Memory ETF (DRAM) and MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (BULZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

DRAM

• 1D: 0.20%
• 1M: 64.14%
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BULZ

• 1D: -3.69%
• 1M: 48.46%
• YTD: 100.89%
• 6M: 88.97%
• 1Y: 258.75%
• 3Y*: 102.20%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

DRAM vs. BULZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
DRAM Roundhill Memory ETF	151.12%
BULZ MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN	177.34%

Correlation

The correlation between DRAM and BULZ is 0.66, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 6, 2026	0.66

DRAM vs. BULZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

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

Return for Risk

DRAM vs. BULZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

BULZ

BULZ Risk / Return Rank: 76
BULZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
BULZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
BULZ Omega Ratio Rank: 68
BULZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
BULZ Martin Ratio Rank: 69

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.

DRAM vs. BULZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Roundhill Memory ETF (DRAM) 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.

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	DRAM	BULZ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	3.51	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	341.95	0.19	+341.76

Drawdowns

DRAM vs. BULZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DRAM drawdown since its inception was -10.46%, smaller than the maximum BULZ drawdown of -94.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DRAM and BULZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	DRAM	BULZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.46%	-94.44%	+83.98%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-54.22%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-67.96%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-5.35%	+5.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.64%	-58.42%	+56.78%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	20.19%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	DRAM	BULZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	22.49%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	56.86%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	73.92%	74.35%	-0.43%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	73.92%	91.23%	-17.31%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	73.92%	91.23%	-17.31%

DRAM vs. BULZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

DRAM has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is lower than BULZ's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

DRAM vs. BULZ - Dividend Comparison

Neither DRAM nor BULZ has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DRAM and BULZ in my portfolio?

DRAM and BULZ have a correlation of 0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, DRAM or BULZ?

On fees, DRAM is cheaper at 0.65% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, DRAM or BULZ?

DRAM is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BULZ.

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

DRAM and BULZ have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between DRAM and BULZ?

DRAM is categorized as Technology Equities, while BULZ is Leveraged Equities. They also come from different issuers: Roundhill and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for DRAM and 0.95% for BULZ.