FNGD vs. BULZ

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FNGD (MicroSectors FANG+™ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN) and BULZ (MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs) are both Leveraged Equities funds from BMO - FNGD tracks the NYSE FANG+ Index (-300%) while BULZ tracks the Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FNGD returned -65.49%/yr vs 74.62%/yr for BULZ. At a correlation of -0.92, they often move in opposite directions. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

FNGD vs. BULZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors FANG+™ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (FNGD) 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, FNGD achieves a -27.13% return, which is significantly lower than BULZ's 42.05% return.

FNGD

• 1D: 7.44%
• 1M: 2.40%
• YTD: -27.13%
• 6M: -23.35%
• 1Y: -49.41%
• 3Y*: -65.49%
• 5Y*: -62.47%
• 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)

FNGD vs. BULZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FNGD MicroSectors FANG+™ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN	-27.13%	-61.42%	-76.57%	-90.14%	52.21%	-30.64%
BULZ MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs	42.05%	60.09%	54.09%	394.22%	-92.26%	9.17%

Correlation

The correlation between FNGD and BULZ is -0.87, 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	-0.87
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 18, 2021	-0.92

The correlation between FNGD and BULZ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from -0.92 to -0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

FNGD vs. BULZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FNGD	BULZ
Technology	63.4%	60.8%
Communication Services	26.0%	26.2%
Consumer Cyclical	10.6%	13.0%
Financial Services	10.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

FNGD vs. BULZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

FNGD

FNGD Risk / Return Rank: 3
FNGD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3
FNGD Sortino Ratio Rank: 3
FNGD Omega Ratio Rank: 3
FNGD Calmar Ratio Rank: 3
FNGD Martin Ratio Rank: 1

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.

FNGD vs. BULZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG+™ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (FNGD) 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.

	FNGD	BULZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.76	1.71	-2.47
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.00	2.12	-3.12
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.89	1.28	-0.39
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.75	2.52	-3.27
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.52	6.50	-8.02

FNGD vs. BULZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNGD Sharpe Ratio is -0.76, which is lower than the BULZ Sharpe Ratio of 1.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNGD 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

FNGD vs. BULZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNGD drawdown since its inception was -100.00%, which is greater than BULZ's maximum drawdown of -94.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNGD and BULZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	FNGD	BULZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-100.00%	-94.44%	-5.56%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-65.92%	-54.22%	-11.70%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-97.35%	-67.96%	-29.39%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-99.67%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-100.00%	-33.07%	-66.93%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-87.30%	-58.02%	-29.28%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	34.15%	20.98%	+13.17%

Volatility

FNGD vs. BULZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for MicroSectors FANG+™ Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (FNGD) is 33.07%, while MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) has a volatility of 35.31%. This indicates that FNGD 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

	FNGD	BULZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	33.07%	35.31%	-2.24%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	53.22%	63.55%	-10.33%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	65.50%	80.03%	-14.53%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	89.67%	91.84%	-2.17%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	91.30%	91.84%	-0.54%

FNGD vs. BULZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

FNGD vs. BULZ - Dividend Comparison

Neither FNGD nor BULZ has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FNGD and BULZ in my portfolio?

FNGD and BULZ have a correlation of -0.87, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FNGD or BULZ?

BULZ has higher volatility (35.31%) compared to FNGD (33.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FNGD dropped -100.00% vs BULZ's -94.44%.

Which ETF is better, FNGD or BULZ?

On 3-year performance, BULZ leads with 74.62% vs -65.49% for FNGD. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, FNGD has been the lower-risk option at 33.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FNGD or BULZ?

Over the 3-year period, BULZ has performed better with a 74.62% return vs -65.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FNGD or BULZ?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between FNGD and BULZ?

FNGD tracks NYSE FANG+ Index (-300%), while BULZ tracks Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%).

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BULZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.71 vs -0.76), 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.