FNGO vs. BULZ

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FNGO (MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN) and BULZ (MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs) are both Leveraged Equities funds - FNGO tracks the NYSE FANG+ Index (+200%) while BULZ tracks the Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FNGO returned 48.86%/yr vs 74.62%/yr for BULZ. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

FNGO vs. BULZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN (FNGO) 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, FNGO achieves a 6.64% return, which is significantly lower than BULZ's 42.05% return.

FNGO

• 1D: -4.61%
• 1M: -6.82%
• YTD: 6.64%
• 6M: 2.85%
• 1Y: 25.87%
• 3Y*: 48.86%
• 5Y*: 22.32%
• 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)

FNGO vs. BULZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FNGO MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN	6.64%	25.49%	101.65%	240.10%	-71.55%	13.86%
BULZ MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs	42.05%	60.09%	54.09%	394.22%	-92.26%	9.17%

Correlation

The correlation between FNGO 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 Aug 18, 2021	0.91

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

FNGO vs. BULZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FNGO	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

FNGO vs. BULZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

FNGO

FNGO Risk / Return Rank: 18
FNGO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 18
FNGO Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
FNGO Omega Ratio Rank: 19
FNGO Calmar Ratio Rank: 16
FNGO Martin Ratio Rank: 16

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.

FNGO vs. BULZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN (FNGO) 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.

	FNGO	BULZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.59	1.71	-1.12
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.07	2.12	-1.05
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	1.28	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.61	2.52	-1.91
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.56	6.50	-4.94

FNGO vs. BULZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNGO Sharpe Ratio is 0.59, which is lower than the BULZ Sharpe Ratio of 1.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNGO 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

FNGO vs. BULZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNGO drawdown since its inception was -78.39%, smaller than the maximum BULZ drawdown of -94.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNGO and BULZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	FNGO	BULZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-78.39%	-94.44%	+16.05%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-42.73%	-54.22%	+11.49%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-47.64%	-67.96%	+20.32%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-78.39%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-20.15%	-33.07%	+12.92%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-23.84%	-58.02%	+34.18%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	16.61%	20.98%	-4.37%

Volatility

FNGO vs. BULZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for MicroSectors FANG+ Index 2X Leveraged ETN (FNGO) is 21.56%, while MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) has a volatility of 35.31%. This indicates that FNGO 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

	FNGO	BULZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	21.56%	35.31%	-13.75%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	35.31%	63.55%	-28.24%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	43.90%	80.03%	-36.13%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	60.80%	91.84%	-31.04%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	61.71%	91.84%	-30.13%

FNGO vs. BULZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

FNGO vs. BULZ - Dividend Comparison

Neither FNGO nor BULZ has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FNGO and BULZ in my portfolio?

FNGO 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, FNGO or BULZ?

BULZ has higher volatility (35.31%) compared to FNGO (21.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FNGO dropped -78.39% vs BULZ's -94.44%.

Which ETF is better, FNGO or BULZ?

On 3-year performance, BULZ leads with 74.62% vs 48.86% for FNGO. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, FNGO has been the lower-risk option at 21.56%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FNGO or BULZ?

Over the 3-year period, BULZ has performed better with a 74.62% return vs 48.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FNGO or BULZ?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between FNGO and BULZ?

FNGO tracks NYSE FANG+ Index (+200%), while BULZ tracks Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%). They also come from different issuers: Bank of Montreal and BMO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BULZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.71 vs 0.59), 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.