FNGU vs. BULZ

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FNGU (MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs) and BULZ (MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs) are both Leveraged Equities funds - FNGU tracks the NYSE FANG+ Index (Gross Total Return) (300%) while BULZ tracks the Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past year, FNGU returned 17.53% vs 135.83% for BULZ. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FNGU charges 2.60%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for BULZ.

Performance

FNGU vs. BULZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs (FNGU) 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, FNGU achieves a -0.99% return, which is significantly lower than BULZ's 42.05% return.

FNGU

• 1D: -7.64%
• 1M: -12.95%
• YTD: -0.99%
• 6M: -5.84%
• 1Y: 17.53%
• 3Y*: —
• 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)

FNGU vs. BULZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
FNGU MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs	-0.99%	3.02%
BULZ MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs	42.05%	32.67%

Correlation

The correlation between FNGU and BULZ is 0.87, 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	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 20, 2025	0.89

The correlation between FNGU and BULZ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

FNGU vs. BULZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FNGU	BULZ
Technology	60.6%	60.8%
Communication Services	29.8%	26.2%
Consumer Cyclical	9.6%	13.0%
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

FNGU vs. BULZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

FNGU

FNGU Risk / Return Rank: 13
FNGU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
FNGU Sortino Ratio Rank: 16
FNGU Omega Ratio Rank: 16
FNGU Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
FNGU Martin Ratio Rank: 12

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.

FNGU vs. BULZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs (FNGU) 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.

	FNGU	BULZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.27	1.71	-1.44
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.81	2.12	-1.31
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.10	1.28	-0.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.30	2.52	-2.22
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.70	6.50	-5.80

FNGU vs. BULZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNGU Sharpe Ratio is 0.27, which is lower than the BULZ Sharpe Ratio of 1.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNGU 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

FNGU vs. BULZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNGU drawdown since its inception was -61.30%, smaller than the maximum BULZ drawdown of -94.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNGU and BULZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	FNGU	BULZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-61.30%	-94.44%	+33.14%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-59.55%	-54.22%	-5.33%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-67.96%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-30.82%	-33.07%	+2.25%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-22.27%	-58.02%	+35.75%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	25.17%	20.98%	+4.19%

Volatility

FNGU vs. BULZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for MicroSectors FANG+ 3X Leveraged ETNs (FNGU) is 33.21%, while MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) has a volatility of 35.31%. This indicates that FNGU 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

	FNGU	BULZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	33.21%	35.31%	-2.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	52.56%	63.55%	-10.99%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	64.46%	80.03%	-15.57%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	81.18%	91.84%	-10.66%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	81.18%	91.84%	-10.66%

FNGU vs. BULZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

FNGU has a 2.60% expense ratio, which is higher than BULZ's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

FNGU vs. BULZ - Dividend Comparison

Neither FNGU nor BULZ has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FNGU and BULZ in my portfolio?

FNGU 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, FNGU or BULZ?

BULZ has higher volatility (35.31%) compared to FNGU (33.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FNGU dropped -61.30% vs BULZ's -94.44%.

Which ETF is better, FNGU or BULZ?

On 1-year performance, BULZ leads with 135.83% vs 17.53% for FNGU. On fees, BULZ is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, FNGU has been the lower-risk option at 33.21%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FNGU or BULZ?

Over the 1-year period, BULZ has performed better with a 135.83% return vs 17.53%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FNGU or BULZ?

BULZ is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 2.60% for FNGU.

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

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

What is the main difference between FNGU and BULZ?

FNGU tracks NYSE FANG+ Index (Gross Total Return) (300%), while BULZ tracks Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%). They also come from different issuers: Bank of Montreal and BMO. Their fees differ too: 2.60% for FNGU and 0.95% for BULZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BULZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.71 vs 0.27), 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.