FAS vs. BULZ

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

FAS (Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X Shares) and BULZ (MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN) are both Leveraged Equities funds - FAS tracks the Russell 1000 Financial Services Index (300%) while BULZ tracks the Solactive FANG Innovation. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FAS returned 38.21%/yr vs 77.02%/yr for BULZ. A 0.50 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FAS charges 1.00%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for BULZ.

Performance

FAS vs. BULZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X Shares (FAS) 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, FAS achieves a -13.50% return, which is significantly lower than BULZ's 54.96% return.

FAS

• 1D: 4.15%
• 1M: 12.77%
• YTD: -13.50%
• 6M: -13.89%
• 1Y: 1.34%
• 3Y*: 38.21%
• 5Y*: 7.30%
• 10Y*: 21.20%

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)

FAS vs. BULZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FAS Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X Shares	-13.50%	21.48%	84.47%	14.92%	-43.19%	8.45%
BULZ MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN	54.96%	60.09%	54.09%	394.22%	-92.26%	9.17%

Correlation

The correlation between FAS and BULZ is 0.27, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.27
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.35
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 18, 2021	0.50

Over the past year, the correlation between FAS and BULZ has dropped to 0.27 - well below their long-term average of 0.50, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

FAS vs. BULZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FAS	BULZ
Financial Services	98.0%	-
Technology	1.7%	62.3%
Industrials	0.2%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	25.0%
Consumer Cyclical	-	12.8%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

FAS vs. BULZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

FAS

FAS Risk / Return Rank: 11
FAS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 10
FAS Sortino Ratio Rank: 11
FAS Omega Ratio Rank: 12
FAS Calmar Ratio Rank: 10
FAS Martin Ratio Rank: 10

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.

FAS vs. BULZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X Shares (FAS) 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.

	FAS	BULZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.03	2.12	-2.09
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.34	2.36	-2.02
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.04	1.32	-0.27
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.03	3.03	-2.99
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.08	7.94	-7.87

FAS vs. BULZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FAS Sharpe Ratio is 0.03, which is lower than the BULZ Sharpe Ratio of 2.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FAS 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

FAS vs. BULZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FAS drawdown since its inception was -91.61%, roughly equal to the maximum BULZ drawdown of -94.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FAS and BULZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	FAS	BULZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-91.61%	-94.44%	+2.83%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-40.88%	-54.22%	+13.34%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-43.10%	-67.96%	+24.86%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-66.88%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-85.99%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-20.63%	-26.99%	+6.36%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-31.12%	-58.18%	+27.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	17.97%	20.62%	-2.65%

Volatility

FAS vs. BULZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X Shares (FAS) is 12.45%, while MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (BULZ) has a volatility of 30.02%. This indicates that FAS 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

	FAS	BULZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.45%	30.02%	-17.57%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	33.46%	61.86%	-28.40%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	43.61%	77.55%	-33.94%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	55.59%	91.54%	-35.95%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	61.33%	91.54%	-30.21%

FAS vs. BULZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

FAS has a 1.00% expense ratio, which is higher than BULZ's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

FAS vs. BULZ - Dividend Comparison

FAS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 9.64%, 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%
FAS Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X Shares	9.64%	8.21%	0.76%	1.77%	0.91%	0.60%	0.47%	0.62%	1.43%	0.11%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FAS and BULZ in my portfolio?

FAS and BULZ have a correlation of 0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FAS or BULZ?

BULZ has higher volatility (30.02%) compared to FAS (12.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FAS dropped -91.61% vs BULZ's -94.44%.

Which ETF is better, FAS or BULZ?

On 3-year performance, BULZ leads with 77.02% vs 38.21% for FAS. On fees, BULZ is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, FAS has been the lower-risk option at 12.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FAS or BULZ?

Over the 3-year period, BULZ has performed better with a 77.02% return vs 38.21%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FAS or BULZ?

BULZ is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.00% for FAS.

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

FAS has the higher dividend yield at 9.64%, compared with 0.00% for BULZ.

What is the main difference between FAS and BULZ?

FAS tracks Russell 1000 Financial Services Index (300%), while BULZ tracks Solactive FANG Innovation. They also come from different issuers: Direxion and BMO. Their fees differ too: 1.00% for FAS and 0.95% for BULZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BULZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.12 vs 0.03), 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.