FLYU vs. BULZ

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FLYU (MicroSectors Travel 3X Leveraged ETNs) and BULZ (MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs) are both Leveraged Equities funds - FLYU tracks the MerQube MicroSectors U.S. Travel Index while BULZ tracks the Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FLYU returned 9.36%/yr vs 74.62%/yr for BULZ. A 0.61 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

FLYU vs. BULZ - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLYU achieves a -11.61% return, which is significantly lower than BULZ's 42.05% return.

FLYU

• 1D: 0.24%
• 1M: 23.11%
• YTD: -11.61%
• 6M: -15.72%
• 1Y: 12.48%
• 3Y*: 9.36%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BULZ

• 1D: -11.88%
• 1M: -15.57%
• YTD: 42.05%
• 6M: 35.20%
• 1Y: 135.83%
• 3Y*: 74.62%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FLYU vs. BULZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
FLYU MicroSectors Travel 3X Leveraged ETNs	-11.61%	-2.29%	33.00%	111.16%	-19.09%
BULZ MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs	42.05%	60.09%	54.09%	394.22%	-47.04%

Correlation

The correlation between FLYU and BULZ is 0.47, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.47
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 22, 2022	0.61

The correlation between FLYU and BULZ shifts across timeframes, from 0.47 (1 year) to 0.61 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FLYU vs. BULZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLYU	BULZ
Consumer Cyclical	52.6%	13.0%
Industrials	17.7%	-
Technology	16.4%	60.8%
Communication Services	13.2%	26.2%
Real Estate	0.1%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

FLYU vs. BULZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLYU

FLYU Risk / Return Rank: 13
FLYU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 11
FLYU Sortino Ratio Rank: 16
FLYU Omega Ratio Rank: 15
FLYU Calmar Ratio Rank: 11
FLYU Martin Ratio Rank: 11

BULZ

BULZ Risk / Return Rank: 47
BULZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
BULZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
BULZ Omega Ratio Rank: 45
BULZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
BULZ Martin Ratio Rank: 42

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.

FLYU vs. BULZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors Travel 3X Leveraged ETNs (FLYU) and MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (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.

	FLYU	BULZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.17	1.71	-1.54
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.81	2.12	-1.31
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.09	1.28	-0.19
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.24	2.52	-2.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.50	6.50	-6.01

FLYU vs. BULZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLYU Sharpe Ratio is 0.17, which is lower than the BULZ Sharpe Ratio of 1.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLYU 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

FLYU vs. BULZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLYU drawdown since its inception was -69.00%, smaller than the maximum BULZ drawdown of -94.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLYU and BULZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLYU	BULZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-69.00%	-94.44%	+25.44%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-52.33%	-54.22%	+1.89%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-69.00%	-67.96%	-1.04%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-29.88%	-33.07%	+3.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-26.54%	-58.02%	+31.48%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	25.27%	20.98%	+4.29%

Volatility

FLYU vs. BULZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for MicroSectors Travel 3X Leveraged ETNs (FLYU) is 23.63%, while MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) has a volatility of 35.31%. This indicates that FLYU 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

	FLYU	BULZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	23.63%	35.31%	-11.68%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	60.01%	63.55%	-3.54%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	74.93%	80.03%	-5.10%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	83.22%	91.84%	-8.62%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	83.22%	91.84%	-8.62%

FLYU vs. BULZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

FLYU vs. BULZ - Dividend Comparison

Neither FLYU nor BULZ has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLYU and BULZ in my portfolio?

FLYU and BULZ have a correlation of 0.47, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLYU or BULZ?

BULZ has higher volatility (35.31%) compared to FLYU (23.63%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLYU dropped -69.00% vs BULZ's -94.44%.

Which ETF is better, FLYU or BULZ?

On 3-year performance, BULZ leads with 74.62% vs 9.36% for FLYU. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, FLYU has been the lower-risk option at 23.63%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLYU or BULZ?

Over the 3-year period, BULZ has performed better with a 74.62% return vs 9.36%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLYU or BULZ?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between FLYU and BULZ?

FLYU tracks MerQube MicroSectors U.S. Travel Index, while BULZ tracks Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%). They also come from different issuers: REX and BMO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BULZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.71 vs 0.17), 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.