FNGU vs. BULZ

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about MicroSectors FANG+™ Index 3X Leveraged ETN (FNGU) and MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (BULZ).

FNGU and BULZ are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. FNGU is a passively managed fund by Bank of Montreal that tracks the performance of the NYSE FANG (TR) (300%). It was launched on Jan 22, 2018. BULZ is a passively managed fund by BMO that tracks the performance of the Solactive FANG Innovation. It was launched on Aug 17, 2021. Both FNGU and BULZ are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.

Performance

FNGU vs. BULZ - Performance Comparison

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

FNGU vs. BULZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
FNGU MicroSectors FANG+™ Index 3X Leveraged ETN	-38.12%	4.24%
BULZ MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN	-32.23%	36.86%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FNGU achieves a -38.12% return, which is significantly lower than BULZ's -32.23% return.

FNGU

• 1D: 13.84%
• 1M: -15.01%
• YTD: -38.12%
• 6M: -46.40%
• 1Y: 17.43%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BULZ

• 1D: 15.12%
• 1M: -15.60%
• YTD: -32.23%
• 6M: -31.80%
• 1Y: 68.79%
• 3Y*: 56.38%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FNGU vs. BULZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

FNGU

MicroSectors FANG+™ Index 3X Leveraged ETN

BULZ

MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN

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: 24
FNGU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 19
FNGU Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
FNGU Omega Ratio Rank: 32
FNGU Calmar Ratio Rank: 19
FNGU Martin Ratio Rank: 18

BULZ

BULZ Risk / Return Rank: 52
BULZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
BULZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
BULZ Omega Ratio Rank: 61
BULZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
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.

FNGU vs. BULZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG+™ Index 3X Leveraged ETN (FNGU) and MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (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.

	FNGU	BULZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.23	0.75	-0.52
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	0.91	1.54	-0.63
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.12	1.21	-0.09
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.27	1.21	-0.94
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	0.71	3.28	-2.56
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FNGU vs. BULZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNGU Sharpe Ratio is 0.23, which is lower than the BULZ Sharpe Ratio of 0.75. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNGU and BULZ, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FNGU	BULZ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.23	0.75	-0.52
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.41	-0.08	-0.33

Correlation

The correlation between FNGU and BULZ is 0.87, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.

Dividends

FNGU vs. BULZ - Dividend Comparison

Neither FNGU nor BULZ has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Drawdowns

FNGU vs. BULZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNGU drawdown since its inception was -60.84%, 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	-60.84%	-94.44%	+33.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-59.55%	-54.22%	-5.33%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-53.95%	-49.18%	-4.77%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-21.77%	-60.16%	+38.39%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	22.28%	20.05%	+2.23%

Volatility

FNGU vs. BULZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for MicroSectors FANG+™ Index 3X Leveraged ETN (FNGU) is 23.48%, while MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (BULZ) has a volatility of 28.82%. 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	23.48%	28.82%	-5.34%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	44.72%	60.39%	-15.67%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	77.61%	92.38%	-14.77%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	80.84%	91.57%	-10.73%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	80.84%	91.57%	-10.73%