FNGG vs. BULZ

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

FNGG (Direxion Daily NYSE FANG+ Bull 2X Shares) and BULZ (MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs) are both Leveraged Equities funds - FNGG tracks the NYSE FANG+ Index (2x Leveraged) while BULZ tracks the Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FNGG returned 47.72%/yr vs 65.65%/yr for BULZ. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FNGG charges 0.97%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for BULZ.

Performance

FNGG vs. BULZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Direxion Daily NYSE FANG+ Bull 2X Shares (FNGG) 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, FNGG achieves a 14.01% return, which is significantly lower than BULZ's 38.16% return.

FNGG

• 1D: -1.75%
• 1M: 5.15%
• 6M: 14.11%
• YTD: 14.01%
• 1Y: 24.63%
• 3Y*: 47.72%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BULZ

• 1D: -7.41%
• 1M: -10.84%
• 6M: 28.00%
• YTD: 38.16%
• 1Y: 98.38%
• 3Y*: 65.65%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FNGG vs. BULZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FNGG Direxion Daily NYSE FANG+ Bull 2X Shares	14.01%	27.21%	98.76%	204.23%	-87.15%	-4.05%
BULZ MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs	38.16%	60.09%	54.09%	394.22%	-92.26%	15.12%

Correlation

The correlation between FNGG and BULZ is 0.86, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.86
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 30, 2021	0.91

The correlation between FNGG and BULZ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

FNGG vs. BULZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FNGG	BULZ
Technology	64.5%	60.8%
Communication Services	25.2%	26.2%
Consumer Cyclical	10.3%	13.0%
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	13.3%
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

FNGG vs. BULZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

FNGG

FNGG Risk / Return Rank: 20
FNGG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 20
FNGG Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
FNGG Omega Ratio Rank: 22
FNGG Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
FNGG Martin Ratio Rank: 18

BULZ

BULZ Risk / Return Rank: 42
BULZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
BULZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
BULZ Omega Ratio Rank: 44
BULZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
BULZ Martin Ratio Rank: 37

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.

FNGG vs. BULZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Direxion Daily NYSE FANG+ Bull 2X Shares (FNGG) 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.

	FNGG	BULZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.57	1.22	-0.65
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.04	1.80	-0.76
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	1.23	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.58	1.82	-1.25
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.44	4.44	-2.99

FNGG vs. BULZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNGG Sharpe Ratio is 0.57, which is lower than the BULZ Sharpe Ratio of 1.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNGG 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

FNGG vs. BULZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNGG drawdown since its inception was -91.33%, roughly equal to the maximum BULZ drawdown of -94.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNGG and BULZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	FNGG	BULZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-91.33%	-94.44%	+3.11%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-43.01%	-54.22%	+11.21%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-47.03%	-67.96%	+20.93%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-15.68%	-34.91%	+19.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-55.17%	-57.75%	+2.58%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	17.12%	22.26%	-5.14%

Volatility

FNGG vs. BULZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Direxion Daily NYSE FANG+ Bull 2X Shares (FNGG) is 15.56%, while MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) has a volatility of 29.07%. This indicates that FNGG 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

	FNGG	BULZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	15.56%	29.07%	-13.51%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	35.05%	65.30%	-30.25%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	43.33%	81.12%	-37.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	67.49%	91.70%	-24.21%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	67.49%	91.70%	-24.21%

FNGG vs. BULZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

FNGG has a 0.97% expense ratio, which is higher than BULZ's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

FNGG vs. BULZ - Dividend Comparison

FNGG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 10.44%, while BULZ has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BULZ MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FNGG Direxion Daily NYSE FANG+ Bull 2X Shares	10.44%	11.89%	0.79%	0.88%	0.00%	4.99%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FNGG and BULZ in my portfolio?

FNGG and BULZ have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FNGG or BULZ?

BULZ has higher volatility (29.07%) compared to FNGG (15.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FNGG dropped -91.33% vs BULZ's -94.44%.

Which ETF is better, FNGG or BULZ?

On 3-year performance, BULZ leads with 65.65% vs 47.72% for FNGG. On fees, BULZ is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, FNGG has been the lower-risk option at 15.56%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FNGG or BULZ?

Over the 3-year period, BULZ has performed better with a 65.65% return vs 47.72%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FNGG or BULZ?

BULZ is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 0.97% for FNGG.

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

FNGG has the higher dividend yield at 10.44%, compared with 0.00% for BULZ.

What is the main difference between FNGG and BULZ?

FNGG tracks NYSE FANG+ Index (2x Leveraged), while BULZ tracks Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%). They also come from different issuers: Direxion and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.97% for FNGG and 0.95% for BULZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BULZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.22 vs 0.57), 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.